New Zealand Mosque Shooting

[PocketZeven]

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.



Timothy McVeigh didn't die in the attack.



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 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.

That was my point. Going in guns blazing is more often then not a suicide mission (not in NZ). If you want to kill a lot of people then using a Bomb is far more efficient.

Your point would be more relevant if Timothy Mcveigh chose to bomb, because he had no acces to guns.

 

[Danoff]

That was my point. Going in guns blazing is more often then not a suicide mission (not in NZ). If you want to kill a lot of people then using a Bomb is far more efficient.

I think you're going to have to establish that guns do not result in a suicide mission. In this very thread people were surprised that the attacker survived. Often in mass shootings attackers off themselves when it's over. Bombs offer both options. You can detonate remotely, or you can get a free pass to Allah by detonating yourself as well. So this is not a distinction. I don't know why you're hammering it. Also, I feel like you should have predicted this complete cornering of this line of thinking, since we've done it before.

Your point would be relevant if Timothy Mcveigh chose to bomb, because he had no acces to guns.

No, that's not required for my point to be relevant. Your claim was that terrorism casualties would drop if certain weapons were not available. I pointed out that other weapons can be more effective at creating casualties. You seem to have no substantive response. Also I feel like you should have predicted this complete cornering of this line of thinking, since we've done it before.

 

[Exorcet]

I think you're going to have to establish that guns do not result in a suicide mission.

@PocketZeven is apparently mistyping "then" in place of "than", if I'm understanding correctly the implication is that the shooter is looking to die.

 

[Danoff]

@PocketZeven is apparently mistyping "then" in place of "than", if I'm understanding correctly the implication is that the shooter is looking to die.

That's a weird position to be arguing in this particular thread, where he wasn't. Either way, bombs offer both choices as well.

 

[PocketZeven]

I think you're going to have to establish that guns do not result in a suicide mission. In this very thread people were surprised that the attacker survived. Often in mass shootings attackers off themselves when it's over. Bombs offer both options. You can detonate remotely, or you can get a free pass to Allah by detonating yourself as well. So this is not a distinction. I don't know why you're hammering it. Also, I feel like you should have predicted this complete cornering of this line of thinking, since we've done it before.



No, that's not required for my point to be relevant. Your claim was that terrorism casualties would drop if certain weapons were not available. I pointed out that other weapons can be more effective at creating casualties. You seem to have no substantive response. Also I feel like you should have predicted this complete cornering of this line of thinking, since we've done it before.

I go there, because you choose to ignore important data concerning countries with strict gun control vs countries with less strict gun control concerning violent crime. The decision to ban certain guns in NZ did not come out of the blue. Gunownership and violent crime go hand in hand.

https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe

and

Edit:

That's a weird position to be arguing in this particular thread, where he wasn't. Either way, bombs offer both choices as well.

Using guns is perhaps more personal then using a bomb. Bombs are also more inaccurate. Perhaps the same reasoningcan be found in warfare concerning the best use between guns vs bombs.

 

[Danoff]

I go there, because you choose to ignore important data concerning countries with strict gun control vs countries with less strict gun control concerning violent crime. The decision to ban certain guns in NZ did not come out of the blue. Gunownership and violent crime go hand in hand.

Sigh

We've done this before too. Do you think that guns in America cause our non-gun violent crime rate to be so high? Our non-gun murder rate is higher than the total murder rate of many of those countries. Please establish how the presence of guns causes high non-gun murder rates. Also, please show some data that links gun control in those countries with lower violent crime rates - please keep in mind (since we've already had this conversation a few times) that you need to show a corollary for the same time period where some highly similar nation didn't enact gun control over the same time period and didn't see similar drops in violent crime rates.

We've done it all. We've gone over all this. Do you have new information you didn't have back then? Because your position was not supported then and your current arguments do not appear to have evolved. All it looks like to me is that you've forgotten.

Edit:

Using guns is perhaps more personal then using a bomb. Bombs are also more inaccurate. Perhaps the same reasoningcan be found in warfare concerning the best use between guns vs bombs.

Ok. So what do you think happens if you can magic away the guns? They thumb their nose at bombs and become peaceful? Or perhaps they use bombs instead... and perhaps they're even better at killing as a result. McVeigh killed people he didn't even want to kill in that building (he has said so). If he'd been moving through that building with a semi-auto or automatic rifle, he has effectively said that there would have been people he'd have spared. There is almost no chance his murder rate goes up as a result of using a more accurate and personal weapon. His murder rate was higher because he was using a less accurate less personal weapon.

So once again, your claim that body counts go down when guns are taken away is dubious at best.

 

[PocketZeven]

Sigh

We've done this before too. Do you think that guns in America cause our non-gun violent crime rate to be so high? Our non-gun murder rate is higher than the total murder rate of many of those countries. Please establish how the presence of guns causes high non-gun murder rates. Also, please show some data that links gun control in those countries with lower violent crime rates - please keep in mind (since we've already had this conversation a few times) that you need to show a corollary for the same time period where some highly similar nation didn't enact gun control over the same time period and didn't see similar drops in violent crime rates.

We've done it all. We've gone over all this. Do you have new information you didn't have back then? Because your position was not supported then and your current arguments do not appear to have evolved. All it looks like to me is that you've forgotten.

Edit:



Ok. So what do you think happens if you can magic away the guns? They thumb their nose at bombs and become peaceful? Or perhaps they use bombs instead... and perhaps they're even better at killing as a result. McVeigh killed people he didn't even want to kill in that building (he has said so). If he'd been moving through that building with a semi-auto or automatic rifle, he has effectively said that there would have been people he'd have spared. There is almost no chance his murder rate goes up as a result of using a more accurate and personal weapon. His murder rate was higher because he was using a less accurate less personal weapon.

So once again, your claim that body counts go down when guns are taken away is dubious at best.

Using that bombing as an argument to discredit my point isnt relevant to what happened in NZ. Australia made gunownership illegal after a mass shooting and never looked back. Why didnt bombing raise? could you further expand the argument that stricter gun laws will raise bombing? I have not found evidence to prove it. There is of evidence however that corroborates that stricter gun laws reduce violent crime.

The issue is very intricate and I will stop making this another gun law discussion. But at least NZ agrees with my line of thought.

 

[Danoff]

Using that bombing as an argument to discredit my point isnt relevant to what happened in NZ. Australia made gunownership illegal after a mass shooting and never looked back. Why didnt bombing raise?

There are still mass-killings in Australia (we've been over this too).

could you further expand the argument that stricter gun laws will raise bombing? I have not found evidence to prove it.

I didn't make that claim. You made the claim that body counts would go down if guns were taken away. I gave you a reason why that may not be the case. I even explained to you why it would have been preferable (from a body count perspective) for McVeigh to use a gun.

There is of evidence however that corroborates that stricter gun laws reduce violent crime.

I explained to exactly what you'd need to show to present that. I've done so before. No evidence was forthcoming.

The issue is very intricate and I will stop making this another gun law discussion. But at least NZ agrees with my line of thought.

Argument from popularity fallacy.

 

[PocketZeven]

There are still mass-killings in Australia (we've been over this too).



I didn't make that claim. You made the claim that body counts would go down if guns were taken away. I gave you a reason why that may not be the case.



I explained to exactly what you'd need to show to present that. I've done so before. No evidence was forthcoming.



Argument from popularity fallacy.

I fault your line of thought on cultural differences.

 

[Danoff]

I fault your line of thought on cultural differences.

Between... the US and Australia? The US and NZ? Europe and the US? Europe and NZ?

This is not a rebuttal. You've effectively dragged me through the same exercise of demonstrating exactly why your line of thought is unsupported and we've reached the same conclusion based on the same evidence. I hope that this helps, if not change your mind, at least cause you to re-examine the basis of your beliefs.

 

[PocketZeven]

Between... the US and Australia? The US and NZ? Europe and the US? Europe and NZ?

This is not a rebuttal. You've effectively dragged me through the same exercise of demonstrating exactly why your line of thought is unsupported and we've reached the same conclusion based on the same evidence. I hope that this helps, if not change your mind, at least cause you to re-examine the basis of your beliefs.

This isnt about beliefs. It is about facts, those that you always chose to ignore or overlook. The problem of extremism however is very complicated, so to bring it back to topic I agree fully with you that gunlaws will not "solve" this issue. Perhaps governements should concentrate on how extremism forms and gains following (like the afore mentioned 8chan).

 

[Danoff]

This isnt about beliefs. It is about facts, those that you always chose to ignore or overlook.

Please explain what I am ignoring or overlooking.

 

[PocketZeven]

Please explain what I am ignoring or overlooking.

No need to go into that. I already am trying to go back to topic. Gunlaws arent the issue here.

 

[Danoff]

No need to go into that. I already am trying to go back to topic. Gunlaws arent the issue here.

I very much agree with that.

 

[PocketZeven]

I very much agree with that.

How do you think of the claim that violence by rightwing extremists is growing, because of rhetoric that is strengthened by the tweets and words from POTUS?

 

[Danoff]

How do you think of the claim that violence by rightwing extremists is growing, because of rhetoric that is strengthened by the tweets and words from POTUS?

I'm not convinced that Trump is influencing these people. I view Trump as a cultural symptom rather than a cause.

 

[Shaun]

Australia made gunownership illegal after a mass shooting and never looked back

Not singling you out as many here in this forum bring this up, you just happen to be the latest instance I have seen of it.

Gun ownership and guns aren't illegal in Australia. Some types of guns yes absolutely but such a sweeping statement is wrong.

 

[Animera]

Military-style semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles to be banned after mass shooting: PM

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/ch...H7PLF-o_f0IXjCjtfjuzoWKRSfGkMj6hRDbc6HGxK9k5E

 

[Jawehawk]

A typical response from politicians. Rather than try to deal with the actual problems or just accepting that if a person wants to harm others, there will always be a way, they instead perform unnecessary and ineffective changes to make it seem like something is being done. Should we ban or more severely restrict vehicles? After all, they make for very efficient killing tools under the right circumstances. What about alcohol? Lots of crimes being committed under the influence of that, so surely all must be punished.

This is just collateral damage from a strike that completely misses the intended target.

 

[Animera]

Are you serious? 'Just accept that if a person wants to harm others, there will always be a way'.
So do nothing at all? Wow!

I'm happy that our government has done something rather than nothing at all.

 

[mustafur]

Are you serious? 'Just accept that if a person wants to harm others, there will always be a way'.
So do nothing at all? Wow!

I'm happy that our government has done something rather than nothing at all.

Sometimes there is nothing you can do, there is still an element of free will humans have that can result in tragic events, not saying it's the case in this sceniaro.

 

[Animera]

I don't disagree with that, but at least if another idiot wants to do something like this in New Zealand again, they won't be able to use automatic weapons to do it.

 

[mustafur]

I don't disagree with that, but at least if another idiot wants to do something like this in New Zealand again, they won't be able to use automatic weapons to do it.

I don't think he used automatic weapons, just Semi-automatic rifles with big-ish bullets and large Magazines(Someone correct me on this?)

 

[Animera]

Well, they won't be able to do that again.

 

[SVX]

Never really understood the idea on weapons being illegal suddenly making them impossible to own. Illegal blackmarkets exist- and sure it may leave the more "regular" owner out of the equation, but if it's someone sinister, or gang related... is a law really going to stop them?

 

[Tina Branford]

Regardless of certain weapons being banned there will always be someone who know how to smith them. There are still gunsmiths around and machinists. and I'm quit sure there are those of the trade that can create a military style semi automatic.

No matter WHAT the government does the strong willed people in a nation with pride will figure out a way to maintain their gun rights. More power too them. I can't stand strict government control on any aspect of life.

 

[baldgye]

No matter WHAT the government does the strong willed people in a nation with pride will figure out a way to maintain their gun rights. More power too them. I can't stand strict government control on any aspect of life.

Lol

 

[Tina Branford]

Lol

At least they admitted in the article that ownership of a gun may be necessary depending on circumstance. All in all not a bad deal in my opinion. Now if it was the government of New Zealand trying to remove all gun rights.. then it would become an issue. In any case, my point stands; a skilled gunsmith can create a semi automatic rifle in his study or shop or whatever you may refer to it as if he was so inclined as to do so. There are even youtube videos of guys doing this.

Illegal or not there will always be people willing to break the law. Merely creating a law will never stop something from happening. A situation like this can and will happen again by the hands of someone radical enough to do it. That's reality.

 

[baldgye]

Now if it was the government there trying to remove all gun rights it would be an issue.

I'm sure the people of New Zealand are grateful for your incites on gun control in their country.

 

[Tina Branford]

I'm sure the people of New Zealand are grateful for your incites on gun control in their country.

The obvious reality is that not everyone in New Zealand agree with the new regulations. The world doesn't work like that and not every citizen of NZ will stand together in unison on this issue.. that's preposterous thinking just to put things lightly.

With that said I'm fully aware my viewpoints on the matter are void in influencing anybody's standing on the issue. The fact of the matter is that this topic derailed into this subject and peoples opinions are being put forth and as such I added my own.