New Zealand Mosque Shooting

[Imari]

Sites sharing child pornography and communities around child porn etc are taken down to the point of basically no longer existing, why should sites that perpetuate and help foster racism be allowed to stay?

It's adorable that you think that just because you can't see something it's not there.

 

[baldgye]

It's adorable that you think that just because you can't see something it's not there.

Why did you jump to that conclusion?
I might be incorrect, but I'd read a report (that I'm struggling to find) that highlighted just how aggressive and successful child protection agencies around the world have been in the last 10 years or so in shutting down and making that 'scene' almost inaccessible. Even on the darkweb these rings are taken down and actively targeted. Compare that to places like 8chan that are on the open internet...

Also, if you read the second part of that very post, you'll see that I openly acknowledged that removing the places for them to congregate, doesn't prevent these people from existing;

I’m not saying that simply removing the means of these people from congregating would remove these people, but it isolated them and their abhorrent believes.

 

[G.T.Ace]

It's adorable that you think that just because you can't see something it's not there.

Deplatforming helps though.

 

[Danoff]

I might be incorrect, but I'd read a report (that I'm struggling to find) that highlighted just how aggressive and successful child protection agencies around the world have been in the last 10 years or so in shutting down and making that 'scene' almost inaccessible. Even on the darkweb these rings are taken down and actively targeted.

It's tough to know of course, since most likely the group reporting the accessibility is also involved in the takedown. In other words, it's very believable that they take down a high percentage of the ones they know about.

 

[PocketZeven]

How is a right-wing extremest, mass murdering people of a specific religion, not political?

My point was that all extremists are bad, regardless of political background. I think for a solution to preventing an extremist from horribly killing innocent lives, right/left/ religion etc. is irrelevant. It might as well have been a muslim terrorist attacking a catholic church. The problem is how can an extremist obtain and use semi-automatic weapons wo kill so many people. That isnt a right/left issue, but a human issue.

 

[baldgye]

My point was that all extremists are bad, regardless of political background. I think for a solution to preventing an extremist from horribly killing innocent lives, right/left/ religion etc. is irrelevant. It might as well have been a muslim terrorist attacking a catholic church. The problem is how can an extremist obtain and use semi-automatic weapons wo kill so many people. That isnt a right/left issue, but a human issue.

The attack was politically motivated. Thus it’s a political issue. If semi-automatic weapons were not available chances are this person(s) would have used other means.

If you refuse to engage in the political movies of the perpetrator(s) then you refuse to actually deal with the issue.

 

[Dotini]

My point was that all extremists are bad, regardless of political background. I think for a solution to preventing an extremist from horribly killing innocent lives, right/left/ religion etc. is irrelevant. It might as well have been a muslim terrorist attacking a catholic church. The problem is how can an extremist obtain and use semi-automatic weapons wo kill so many people. That isnt a right/left issue, but a human issue.

If an animal is threatened, it might run or it might fight. (Or it might stand like a deer in the headlights, lol.)
Similarly, humans when threatened may revert to instincts such as flight or fight. Alpha male humans are potentially violent, no doubt about it. I don't see that changing.

 

[Biggles]

The attack was politically motivated. Thus it’s a political issue. If semi-automatic weapons were not available chances are this person(s) would have used other means.

If you refuse to engage in the political movies of the perpetrator(s) then you refuse to actually deal with the issue.

Even though I believe, in the US & some other places, gun violence is increased by the presence of many guns, I also believe that committed political terrorists will find other ways to kill people. Guns are not the particular attraction, as they often are for the crazy/angry shooter.

 

[Sander 001]

The attack was politically motivated. Thus it’s a political issue. If semi-automatic weapons were not available chances are this person(s) would have used other means.

If you refuse to engage in the political movies of the perpetrator(s) then you refuse to actually deal with the issue.

I remember on the very same day as the Sandy Hook massacre where 20 children and 6 adults were killed by a rifle, there was another attack on an elementary school. It was in a Chinese village and the attacker used a knife, wounding 23 children. Zero fatalities.

 

[Dennisch]

With a truck on a boulevard you can kill more than 80 people with one attack. And hit another 500.

 

[Dotini]

With a truck on a boulevard you can kill more than 80 people with one attack. And hit another 500.

Pierre Levegh accidentally killed more than 80 people with a small, light car.

 

[Dennisch]

Small light car/150mph petrol bomb.

Potato/potato.

 

[Blitz24]

Small light car/150mph petrol bomb.

Potato/potato.

The solution is to ban all cars, except for Yugos and Reliant Robins.

 

[baldgye]

I remember on the very same day as the Sandy Hook massacre where 20 children and 6 adults were killed by a rifle, there was another attack on an elementary school. It was in a Chinese village and the attacker used a knife, wounding 23 children. Zero fatalities.

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

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


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

 

[novcze]

If you refuse to engage in the political movies of the perpetrator(s) then you refuse to actually deal with the issue.

Would be interesting to hear how can we actually deal with the issue?

I would say that progressive view would be that this is only small dowside of wonderful multiculturalism, right?

 

[baldgye]

Would be interesting to hear how can we actually deal with the issue?

I would say that progressive view would be that this is only small dowside of wonderful multiculturalism, right?

No. Racism existed before multiculturalism.

 

[TetsuKobura]

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

So you don't see any reason for someone to defend themselves if their life or their families' lives are in danger? That's really good to know for future reference.

I'm not really sure why you liked my post, it wasn't meant to be a positive reply.

 

[novcze]

No. Racism existed before multiculturalism.

But multiculturalism brings these racists closer together, so they can actually kill each other (edit: and others too), which is the issue, no?

 

[Blood Eagle]

Why the **** has this devolved into a thread about American gun control anyway?

These threads always do.

So you don't see any reason for someone to defend themselves if their life or their families' lives are in danger? That's really good to know for future reference.

 

[TetsuKobura]

These threads always do.

I mean, I didn’t start that. After all, he decided to make it that way.

 

[Joey D]

So you don't see any reason for someone to defend themselves if their life or their families' lives are in danger? That's really good to know for future reference.

I'm not really sure why you liked my post, it wasn't meant to be a positive reply.

Most places of worship don't allow people coming in to carry a firearm. So even if someone wanted to have a gun in the mosque, it was probably against the organization's policy. Even here in the US, you only recently could legally carry a firearm into a house of worship.

Plus, I'm not sure how many people get up and head off to worship services and think they need to be armed. A vast majority of people practicing Islam are incredibly peaceful people. I can't see many of them owning firearms to begin with anyway since it goes against their peace message.

Also, it's a little odd you want to tuck that away for future reference, are you planning on robbing him or something? I'm not sure why you'd ever need to know if someone was armed or not unless you plan on violating their rights in some way and, you know, don't want to get shot.

 

[Dotini]

But multiculturalism brings these racists closer together, so they can actually kill each other (edit: and others too), which is the issue, no?

IMO it boils down to genetics and memetics. Males are violent animals and it will stay that way for a long time to come. If you would have peace, then don't threaten males in any way, culturally, multi-culturally, or economically. If you insist on changing society in any fundamental way, then simply be prepared to pay the price. You cannot have cake and eat it too.

 

[TetsuKobura]

Most places of worship don't allow people coming in to carry a firearm. So even if someone wanted to have a gun in the mosque, it was probably against the organization's policy. Even here in the US, you only recently could legally carry a firearm into a house of worship.

Plus, I'm not sure how many people get up and head off to worship services and think they need to be armed. A vast majority of people practicing Islam are incredibly peaceful people. I can't see many of them owning firearms to begin with anyway since it goes against their peace message.

Also, it's a little odd you want to tuck that away for future reference, are you planning on robbing him or something? I'm not sure why you'd ever need to know if someone was armed or not unless you plan on violating their rights in some way and, you know, don't want to get shot.

As I've stated previously in this thread and the Sutherland Springs thread, attacking **any** place of worship regardless of religion is a cowardly thing to do.

I've never had to deal with a situation where I would need a firearm at a church because I don't live in an area where gun control laws are everywhere. I have no doubt a lot of people regardless of religion won't carry a firearm with them due to their peace messages, but taking away their right to life doesn't exactly help them in any way shape or form, since I'm sure a vast majority of them won't ever commit a felony.

Also what a horrible thing to accuse me of. You're lucky I can't say what I want to say since it's against the AUP, so I'll just say this. Instead of fringing baseless accusations at me instead of perhaps looking into what I really meant by that, which was sarcasm if you didn't know, then you should probably go write another jalopnik-tier article instead of trying to instigate and provoke a member of GTP even further.

 

[Joey D]

Also what a horrible thing to accuse me of. You're lucky I can't say what I want to say since it's against the AUP, so I'll just say this. Instead of fringing baseless accusations at another person instead of perhaps looking into what I really meant by that, which was sarcasm if you didn't know, then maybe you should go write another jalopnik-tier article instead of trying to instigate and provoke a member of GTP even further.

It's not an accusation, it's a question. Why do you need to tuck that information away?

I read your statement several times and came to the same conclusion every time, you want to tuck away the notion that the member is unarmed and will never be armed. I can't think of a legit reason why you'd need to save that information. It's just a really strange thing to say and something to make a point of quoting. I also see nothing that suggests sarcasm in the post either. The first statement is even something that makes a great deal of sense and something I do agree with. People should have the right to defend themselves. It's the second part where it falls off the rails.

So please, enlighten me, why is it "really good to know for future reference" that he is against gun ownership and would never own a gun? I hear comments like that all the time and never once thought to myself, "you know this would come in handy someday."

And sorry you don't enjoy GTP's articles, we're always open to suggestions for content the community would like to see.

 

[TetsuKobura]

It's not an accusation, it's a question. Why do you need to tuck that information away?

I read your statement several times and came to the same conclusion every time, you want to tuck away the notion that the member is unarmed and will never be armed. I can't think of a legit reason why you'd need to save that information. It's just a really strange thing to say and something to make a point of quoting. I also see nothing that suggests sarcasm in the post either. The first statement is even something that makes a great deal of sense and something I do agree with. People should have the right to defend themselves. It's the second part where it falls off the rails.

So please, enlighten me, why is it "really good to know for future reference" that he is against gun ownership and would never own a gun? I hear comments like that all the time and never once thought to myself, "you know this would come in handy someday."

And sorry you don't enjoy GTP's articles, we're always open to suggestions for content the community would like to see.

Because there's a nifty little button called the ignore button? I thought that was obvious enough.

 

[Biggles]

Also what a horrible thing to accuse me of. You're lucky I can't say what I want to say since it's against the AUP, so I'll just say this. Instead of fringing baseless accusations at me instead of perhaps looking into what I really meant by that, which was sarcasm if you didn't know, then you should probably go write another jalopnik-tier article instead of trying to instigate and provoke a member of GTP even further.

It was just an odd comment. What was it supposed to mean?

 

[mustafur]

What is odd about Brenton Tarrant is he has spent significant time in Muslim countries apprently he was in Turkey for a year or two, even went to Pakistan.

It's unclear how he got to this stage. My guess is he must of been turned by a group somewhere in his travels, could of even been in Dunedin where he was living for the last few years, he was part of a gun club there a former member said that the club had gone down hill pretty badly in the last few years.

I would be looking there first for answers.

 

[Northstar]

Well yes ... if you want to do something about stopping it from happening again,

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm not entirely convinced people actually want to stop this crap from happening. If they did they would be focusing on making the world an overall better place to the point the thought of trying to kill as many people as they can doesn't even enter their minds. Instead we just stand around, pointing fingers at each other and racing to the bottom.

It's not a "left wing" thing, it's not a "right wing" thing, it's an us thing. And until we realize that and start actually respecting each other, innocent people will continue dying.

 

[mustafur]

Partisan political thinking is tiresome garbage yes.

All it takes is one lunatic from any political spectrum because they are all Humans to do something like this.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Also what a horrible thing to accuse me of.

Not going to lie, I read your comment and the same thought occurred. Sarcasm doesn't work in text form, in the context of the conversation it did sound weird.