New Zealand Mosque Shooting

[Biggles]

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.

1) You're not convinced "people" actually want terrorist mass killings to stop? Which people?

2) "Making the world an overall better place" - better in what way? Clearly different people have very different definitions of "better".

3) Clearly for the vast majority of people "the thought of trying to kill as many people as they can" doesn't even enter their minds.

4) People have widely different ideas about politics. There is legitimate disagreement. It has always been thus. Innocent people dying because of terrorist killing rampages? That's a different matter.

 

[Northstar]

1) You're not convinced "people" actually want terrorist mass killings to stop? Which people?

I mean us a global society. We say we wan't peace, but never do much to actually show it.

Actions speak louder than words, and right now I just see a bunch of people flapping their jaws while sitting on their hands.

2) "Making the world an overall better place" - better in what way? Clearly different people have very different definitions of "better".

A peaceful one, I think that's something we all ultimately want.

3) Clearly for the vast majority of people "the thought of trying to kill as many people as they can" doesn't even enter their minds.

I never said it did.

4) People have widely different ideas about politics. There is legitimate disagreement. It has always been thus. Innocent people dying because of terrorist killing rampages? That's a different matter.

Of course people will always have different opinions, but surely there must be a better way than what we currently have? The whole "my way or the highway" thing is only going to doom us all.

 

[McLaren]

1) You're not convinced "people" actually want terrorist mass killings to stop? Which people?

2) "Making the world an overall better place" - better in what way? Clearly different people have very different definitions of "better".

3) Clearly for the vast majority of people "the thought of trying to kill as many people as they can" doesn't even enter their minds.

4) People have widely different ideas about politics. There is legitimate disagreement. It has always been thus. Innocent people dying because of terrorist killing rampages? That's a different matter.

Think you're missing his point; there's never a desire to compromise on either side. They just yell until the event passes and it goes back to normal. It's someone's way or the highway.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I mean us a global society. We say we wan't peace, but never do much to actually show it.

The problem is an agreement over financial policy, social policy, religious policy. Until there's an identical position on those things amongst all people we will naturally define different sets of political beliefs in particular ways. Yesterday's terrorist stabbing in Britain, for example, is categorised as 'far-right'. We could call it 'wheelbarrow' or 'penguin' - if everybody knew what it meant then it would just be another term to explain something that everybody understood. If slightly odd.

Actions speak louder than words, and right now I just see a bunch of people flapping their jaws while sitting on their hands.

But then pens can be mightier than swords. Aren't some people already taking physical action in the name of things they truly believe?

 

[Danoff]

Aren't some people already taking physical action in the name of things they truly believe?

You mean the folks who are shooting up innocent people? Or running them over with trucks? Or bombing them? Or ramming planes into their buildings?

I too wish that we could find a way to stop them. But I recognize that it is not possible without sacrificing all personal freedom. There is a compromise though, we in the US can take more steps than we are taking without sacrificing our principles on the way. We can learn and adapt even if we cannot right now deliver a perfectly safe world.

 

[Biggles]

I mean us a global society. We say we wan't peace, but never do much to actually show it.

Of course people will always have different opinions, but surely there must be a better way than what we currently have? The whole "my way or the highway" thing is only going to doom us all.

A global society? In the end we're a collection of individuals. Not only have I never killed anyone for political reasons, I've never even thought about killing people for political reasons. And I imagine the same is true of the vast majority of people. Political differences are to expected. They should be put out in the public arena for discussion & subject to a democratic vote. To stop advocating for things we believe in because some extremist individual acts out violently would truly be "letting the terrorists win."

Edit: See? Danoff & I can agree ... where we agree. 👍

 

[TenEightyOne]

You mean the folks who are shooting up innocent people? Or running them over with trucks? Or bombing them? Or ramming planes into their buildings?

That's precisely what I mean. I was trying to illustrate that the line between taking physical action for what we believe is right and taking physical action for what we believe is right is non-existent.

I too wish that we could find a way to stop them. But I recognize that it is not possible without sacrificing all personal freedom. There is a compromise though, we in the US can take more steps than we are taking without sacrificing our principles on the way. We can learn and adapt even if we cannot right now deliver a perfectly safe world.

Agreed.

 

[Northstar]

A global society? In the end we're a collection of individuals.

A collection of individuals is what I would consider to be a society, so not really sure what your point is here apart from your usual need to split hairs.

Not only have I never killed anyone for political reasons, I've never even thought about killing people for political reasons. And I imagine the same is true of the vast majority of people.

Once again, I never said they did. Not sure how much more clear I can make that.

Political differences are to expected. They should be put out in the public arena for discussion & subject to a democratic vote. To stop advocating for things we believe in because some extremist individual acts out violently would truly be "letting the terrorists win."

And I agree with that. What I don't agree with is the current trend of blocking out opposing views we are seeing in the larger media outlets.

 

[Biggles]

A collection of individuals is what I would consider to be a society, so not really sure what your point is here apart from your usual need to split hairs..

Splitting hairs? I'm not splitting hairs - I completely disagree with what you're saying:

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.

What constitutes "making the world an overall better place" is the whole essence of the discussion. People have very differing opinions of what this means. I do not support political violence against people whose political beliefs are different from my own. I support dialogue, the attempt to persuade & the electoral process. In practice, I expect the necessity for some compromise.

But there's also a thing called "individual responsibility". My political beliefs being opposed to somebody else's does not not make me responsible in any way for the violence of some extremist nut job in New Zealand ... & the same is true for other people.

 

[Northstar]

I support dialogue, the attempt to persuade & the electoral process. In practice, I expect the necessity for some compromise.

That's what I've been trying to say, I guess I'm just not that good at getting my point across. We need more actual discussion and less "It's *insert groups* fault" crap we've been seeing in a good chunk of the more mainstream media.

Anyways, I'm done with this section, it's obvious I'm not able to get my point across in a good enough manner so I might as well not even bother anymore. Peace out!

 

[Danoff]

That's what I've been trying to say, I guess I'm just not that good at getting my point across. We need more actual discussion and less "It's *insert groups* fault" crap we've been seeing in a good chunk of the more mainstream media.

Anyways, I'm done with this section, it's obvious I'm not able to get my point across in a good enough manner so I might as well not even bother anymore. Peace out!

FWIW, I think I understand what you were trying to say. I think (and you can correct me if I'm wrong) that you're sick of people using each and every event as a way to try to advocate for a pet policy rather than to honestly think about what would help, would work, and wouldn't cause additional harm. You see people jumping on every current event as an opportunity to bring their own political agenda and turn something that is about the struggle of others and make it about themselves.

And I agree.

 

[Biggles]

FWIW, I think I understand what you were trying to say. I think (and you can correct me if I'm wrong) that you're sick of people using each and every event as a way to try to advocate for a pet policy rather than to honestly think about what would help, would work, and wouldn't cause additional harm. You see people jumping on every current event as an opportunity to bring their own political agenda and turn something that is about the struggle of others and make it about themselves.

And I agree.

Hmm. Well you do exactly the same thing with your pet policies ... & so do the rest of us. People have totally different perspectives, different "pet policies". Taxes, big government, big corporations, immigration, abortion, religion, terrorism, war, racial politics, sexual politics, the electoral system, you name it. People disagree - it's always been that way & it's likely that it always will. Killing innocent people in the name of one of these causes - like the guy in New Zealand - that's a step in a different direction.

 

[Danoff]

Hmm. Well you do exactly the same thing with your pet policies ... & so do the rest of us.

Give me an example of me that you're thinking of.

There's a difference between talking about something that is related to an issue, and forcing something to fit your issue. There is also a difference between coming up with a practical solution and standing on principle. Part of the issue here is that there are folks whose principle is "no guns" *hand-wave* and preventing violence. If the goal is to prevent violence, that's one thing. If the goal is "no guns" *hand-wave again*, let's not pretend that it's equivalent to stopping violence.

So two issues.

1) making an event that happened in NZ about America
2) pretending that guns cause violence and that eliminating them (which we can't do) would solve that problem

Maybe you think I've done a disservice to the position of others. I'm not necessarily trying to accurately capture the sentiment of anyone on this board in particular. I'm elaborating on the sentiment I heard from @Northstar.

I too get tired of the anti-gun side making every issue about the exact same unworkable poorly thought-through position that doesn't for a second hold up to scrutiny. We go around the same circle every time here, and apparently it doesn't matter what country the event occurs in. People get shot, America's guns and gun laws are to blame (no matter what). We talk about why banning guns, or even subsets of guns, won't fix the problem and isn't workable and isn't consistent with human rights. Rinse, repeat.

This is a hard problem, not an easy one. It doesn't help at all to listen to people pretend otherwise.

Edit:

And just to be clear, some of this sentiment comes from sources outside of this thread. And some of this sentiment comes as a response to the "we have to do something, anything" response that keeps happening in place of an actual workable solution being presented. The sentiment against "thoughts and prayers" is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. It mistakes a non-knee-jerk response for satisfaction with the status quo.


Edit 2:

Apparently there's more. This is turning into more of a rant than I expected, and goes well beyond this thread at this point.

It does a disservice to the problem of violence, and to the event itself, to declare a solution, or even demand a solution, in response to the event. It pretends that the event was preventable, it attempts to put the blame on all of society for the actions of a single person (in many cases). Because after all, if it was as easy as demanding a solution, or declaring a solution, 5 seconds after the event occurred... well then we should have done it ahead of time and just stopped the whole thing.

It's not our fault that there are mass murderer crazy people out there. And they're not easy to stop. It's not progressive or smart or responsible to demand a solution to a hard problem. It doesn't make anyone enlightened simply because they can point to bad and call it bad and say that it shouldn't be so. So when someone says that their thoughts and prayers are with the victims, that's not weakness. It's not complacency. It's not dismissive. Claiming that there is an easy solution, and that this should have been prevented, and blaming society, is intellectually lazy, disrespectful and arrogant.

My thoughts are with the victims of this event in New Zealand.

 

[Biggles]

Give me an example of me that you're thinking of.

My remarks were addressed to these comments:

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.

What does "standing around pointing fingers at each other and racing to the bottom" actually mean? That people disagree with each other? How is that "the bottom"? Different people have different, often sincerely held beliefs. They may all have in mind the goal of "making the world an overall better place", but have completely different ideas about how to get there & what the "better place" would look like.

I think you are being disingenuous if you, of all people, don't recognize that you have entrenched political beliefs that you promote with great enthusiasm & single mindedness. I have no interest in going back into the morass of arguments pro & anti gun control. It seems to me that there are legitimate arguments & bad ones on both sides. What position you take on the subject overall, as with many other issues, depends on your priorities.

 

[Danoff]

Was this aimed at me?

I think you are being disingenuous if you, of all people, don't recognize that you have entrenched political beliefs that you promote with great enthusiasm & single mindedness.

It's not enthusiasm or single-mindedness (which is an interesting choice of phrase) that's at issue. It's pretense. That's what leads one to wonder whether people genuinely want to help. I suppose if I want to play devil's advocate (and I often do), I would say that one can accuse both sides of pretense when it comes to gun control.

One side pretends that it's about helping people, but the proposed solutions often show a complete lack of regard for helping, a complete lack of interest in pragmatism, and a complete disregard for collateral damage. That kind of unworkable solution doesn't look like helping, it looks like an attempt at blame.

The other side though also often pretends to want to help people, but ties their hands so tightly that they refuse to put forward a single proposed measure to actually help. The excuses often seem like a refusal to engage, like someone who doesn't actually want to think about the problem, and just wishes it would go away.

...and religion is a problem too. Because too many people just want the lord to take the wheel.

There is a middle ground, but you have to be willing to see both sides. And I think you in particular are, since as you say right below this, there are legitimate arguments and bad ones on both sides.

I have no interest in going back into the morass of arguments pro & anti gun control. It seems to me that there are legitimate arguments & bad ones on both sides. What position you take on the subject overall, as with many other issues, depends on your priorities.

It's (often) worse than that. It depends on your morality.

 

[Novalee]

The terrorist had planned a third attack possibly

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/19/asia/christchurch-attack-intl/index.html

The suspect accused of carrying out Friday's terror attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, was likely on his way to carry out a third shooting before he was stopped by authorities, New Zealand's top police official said.

 

[SestoScudo]

The terrorist had planned a third attack possibly

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/19/asia/christchurch-attack-intl/index.html

The suspect accused of carrying out Friday's terror attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, was likely on his way to carry out a third shooting before he was stopped by authorities, New Zealand's top police official said.

Which place was going to be his third attack?

 

[PocketZeven]

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 partially agree. Making it political devides people and in my opinion all extremists should be condemned. It really doesnt matter if its right/left or religious. In the current crazy world we even have the president downplaying the fact that statistically rightwing motivated is the most dangerous threat in current times. Its crazy how he keeps downplaying rightwing extremists, but easily attacks leftwing extremism as if the right can do no wrong.

What I mean is that rightwing extremism should always denounced by either right/left as well as extreme left and religious extremism. Extremism is extremism. I dont think that Nazi germany is any better/worse then Stalin's Communism. They actually have more in common then differences. The core of the problem is extremism and not left/right politics.

Concerning semi-automatic weapons. You are right, but he might have done much much less damage with a knife or a handgun with limited rounds. What other shortterm action would you propose?

 

[baldgye]

What other shortterm action would you propose?

I wouldn't propose any.

 

[Danoff]

Concerning semi-automatic weapons. You are right, but he might have done much much less damage with a knife or a handgun with limited rounds.

Again, Timothy McVeigh.

You should be able to predict this response at this point. In fact, it should be so familiar to you that you don't even post the bit about the knife or handgun with limited rounds.

 

[Liquid]

I'm delighted that Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern has refused to publicly state the name of the attacker. I hope it is a stance that is maintained.

 

[PocketZeven]

I wouldn't propose any.

Just thoughts and prayers i guess then?

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.

Give me an example of me that you're thinking of.

2) pretending that guns cause violence and that eliminating them (which we can't do) would solve that problem

I too get tired of the anti-gun side making every issue about the exact same unworkable poorly thought-through position that doesn't for a second hold up to scrutiny. We go around the same circle every time here, and apparently it doesn't matter what country the event occurs in. People get shot, America's guns and gun laws are to blame (no matter what). We talk about why banning guns, or even subsets of guns, won't fix the problem and isn't workable and isn't consistent with human rights. Rinse, repeat.

.

Having everyone carry a gun is not going to make the world safer. Would you feel safer if every country in the world had nukes? Its impossible to denuclearize every country, but I would prefer that the country that have them, have enough safeguards.

Gun control has literally worked historically in almost every western country with gun violence being statistically far lower. So why take it off the table as something that isnt worthwhile to debate over. In a country like New-Zealand it has a large chance of succes of saving lives.

 

[baldgye]

Just thoughts and prayers i guess then?

I don't understand the logic.
You asked what other short term solutions I would propose, NZ has already openly embraced a semi-automatic weapons ban and I imagine that police are investigating this crime. Short term what other proposals would you like?
I'm not from NZ, I've never been to NZ, I'm also not a counter terrorist officer/expert or professional of any description, what sort of meaningful incite could I possible offer on short term solutions to terrorism?

So no, I've never once suggested paying and thinking of anyone as a solution to anything.

As for long-term solutions, I've already suggested that places like 8chan and other places where white supremacists congregate should be treated as seriously as paedophile networks are.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't understand the logic.
You asked what other short term solutions I would propose, NZ has already openly embraced a semi-automatic weapons ban and I imagine that police are investigating this crime. Short term what other proposals would you like?
I'm not from NZ, I've never been to NZ, I'm also not a counter terrorist officer/expert or professional of any description, what sort of meaningful incite could I possible offer on short term solutions to terrorism?

So no, I've never once suggested paying and thinking of anyone as a solution to anything.

As for long-term solutions, I've already suggested that places like 8chan and other places where white supremacists congregate should be treated as seriously as paedophile networks are.

Sorry I misunderstood out of context. I thought you proposed not to do anything. There is no clearcut solutions
thats why I said "action" for these kind of tradegies. I think the location is irrelevant. If something like this happened in you country, what action would you want leadership to make?

 

[Danoff]

Just thoughts and prayers i guess then?

This is essentially a false dilemma fallacy. The false dilemma being presented is that we have to pick from the available solutions on the table. We don't. We can refuse to proceed until we see a better solution.

Having everyone carry a gun is not going to make the world safer.

I'm not sure why you're saying this. All I said was that you should be aware of Timothy McVeigh, and that you should be so aware of him that your argument that knives or pistols would get used should be stopped before it comes out of your keyboard.

Gun control has literally worked historically in almost every western country with gun violence being statistically far lower.

You should really be able to predict my response by now. Seriously, I shouldn't even have to say it. Who cares!?!?!?!?

Gun statistics are not what I'm interested in. I'm interested in violent crime. I don't care if it's shot, blown up, run over, or crashed... I don't want to get murdered and I don't want to see other people murdered. I do not get the fascination with the murder weapon of choice.

 

[PocketZeven]

This is essentially a false dilemma fallacy. The false dilemma being presented is that we have to pick from the available solutions on the table. We don't. We can refuse to proceed until we see a better solution.



I'm not sure why you're saying this. All I said was that you should be aware of Timothy McVeigh, and that you should be so aware of him that your argument that knives or pistols would get used should be stopped before it comes out of your keyboard.



You should really be able to predict my response by now. Seriously, I shouldn't even have to say it. Who cares!?!?!?!?

Gun statistics are not what I'm interested in. I'm interested in violent crime. I don't care if it's shot, blown up, run over, or crashed... I don't want to get murdered and I don't want to see other people murdered. I do not get the fascination with the murder weapon of choice.

Having everyone carry a gun would also not prevent a bombing.
So how do you see the NZ goverment anouncement of the ban?
In previous discussion I already agree with you though. The problem in essence isnt the weapon of choice, but the extremism. However taking away weapons can influence the casualty rate. And that is the point I will always support.

 

[Danoff]

Having everyone carry a gun would also not prevent a bombing.

Not what I was saying, see below.

So how do you see the NZ goverment anouncement of the ban?

I see it as security theater.

In previous discussion I already agree with you though. The problem in essence isnt the weapon of choice, but the extremism. However taking away weapons can influence the casualty rate. And that is the point I will always support.

Timothy McVeigh.

It killed 168 people, including nineteen children in the day care center on the second floor, and injured 684 others

No Guns needed. Your claim that the casualty rate drops is dubious at best.

 

[baldgye]

I think the location is irrelevant.

I don’t.

If something like this happened in you country, what action would you want leadership to make?

Guns are largely already illegal in the UK and I don't believe in short term solutions to global issues like terrorism.

 

[PocketZeven]

Not what I was saying, see below.



I see it as security theater.



Timothy McVeigh.



No Guns needed. Your claim that the casualty rate drops is dubious at best.

That isnt relevant to this situation. For one it happened in NZ and this was racially/religiously motivated. Countering my argument with an example from 1995 in the USA and differently motivated, isnt relevant to the issue at hand. It really doesnt progress the discussion. Also the motivation to bomb vs shoot is not always the same. Someone choosing to shoot people is more often then not on a suicide mission and/or wants to face the enemy in the eye. Bombing is a much more efficient tool for terrorism. So for you to use this as an argument, one should also ask why mass shootings occur? Why dont they use bombs. The answer will counter your argument that weapon of choice is irrelevant.

 

[Danoff]

That isnt relevant to this situation. For one it happened in NZ. Countering my argument with an example from 1995 that isnt relevant to the issue at hand, really doesnt progress the discussion. The motivation to bomb vs shoot is not always the same.

The motivation is quite similar in this case. You made the claim that banning guns reduces casualties. There are several reasons why that's not self-evident, one of them being that alternatives (such as bombs) can cause more casualties.

Someone choosing to shoot people is more often then not on a suicide mission and/or wants to face the enemy in the eye. Bombing is a much more efficient tool for terrorism. So for you to use this as an argument, one should also ask why mass shootings occur?

Timothy McVeigh didn't die in the attack.

Why dont they use bombs. The answer will counter your argument that weapon of choice is irrelevant.

Because guns are easier. As easy as it is to fill up a truck with fertilizer and park it outside of a building, guns are even easier (especially in the US, but maybe NZ as well). Take away their guns (assuming that's even possible) and the casualties may go up because they'll use alternative methods that may be more effective. McVeigh's method was more effective. Do you think that bombing a mosque is impossible? Or that casualties wouldn't increase if a mosque was bombed?

Your claim that casualties go down if guns are not available is dubious at best.

Edit:

Also this:

I think the location is irrelevant.

That isnt relevant to this situation. For one it happened in NZ