Mass shootings in New Zealand mosques

Oh.

Well then.

I'll leave you to get busy taking "decisive ACTION!"

For what it was worth your society was already going in the "wrong" direction (according to you) with the police arming themselves in face of the obvious in an "unarmed" society..that is, only outlaws have guns when guns are outlawed. This senseless "escalation" has to end, right?

Maybe if you "decisively" disarm the 5% of your citizens that were so law-abiding and compliant with authority that they told your government exactly who they are, what they have, and where they live.

Now that your policemen have sensibly armed themselves and you obviously have lists of the registered gun owners in the country I don't see why you can't take decisive action today. Go pick them all up today. I'm sure it'll make you much safer.

I mean, you can't just do nothing. You have to make some sort of meaningless gesture or you don't care.

In a country as safe and is unarmed as New Zealand is what possible excuse could you have for allowing 5% of your citizens to be armed.?? Think about the other 95%. Don't they have right to live in a peaceful Society free from the worry that their neighbor has a gun?. You people are monsters.

Maybe you can get a collection of high school students together and demand that the adults disarm because reasons.

On a personal note: given that more likely than not you will probably find in the coming days and weeks that you have some sort of connection to some lost in this tragedy. How does it feel to have somebody not of your country not involve the tragedy, who doesn't know any of the people involved carping at you and politicizing the incident? You like it much? Personally, I always found it distasteful.

Given the disproportionate rates of incarceration of the Maoris there, I don't know how you as a white person can feel anything less than complicit in the environment that fostered the white nationalism that led this person to commit this atrocity. I mean sure this guy was not in any way shape or form a participant in New Zealand society..wasn't even a citizen but we really shouldn't start labeling people as Citizens vs. Undocumented should we?

I think you'll find any similar action taken on my part has been out of some sense of empathy of the victims of mass shootings in America, and a desire to make the world in general a better place. I don't have a problem with people from outside Aotearoa commenting on the situation at all. I do have a problem with people showing zero concern for the actual event, or for humanity in general, because they feel their need to protect their 'right' to own firearms. Yes, I am probably more affected by this tragedy than others because it's so immediate (although I don't know anyone involved, unless I happened to meet any of them while working with refugee agencies). But no, I don't think that only people inside NZ have the right to comment on it. My arguments are the same.
 
I did think about asking how that 'gun ownership protecting against tyranny' was working out for him, given our current differences in leadership. It's probably not necessary though. I'm just glad that taking a stand regarding gun control doesn't come with the risk of losing an election.

I spent 3 months at a famous research facility in Nelson. Your country, without a doubt, is one of the best in the World. Those that hate, choose the best to make their statements. But what they dont understand, is you are the best for a reason. And this is being shown today. :heart:
 
I spent 3 months at a famous research facility in Nelson. Your country, without a doubt, is one of the best in the World. Those that hate, choose the best to make their statements. But what they dont understand, is you are the best for a reason. And this is being shown today. :heart:

I'm really trying to not get angry, because that won't help anything. And there are people who have much more right than me to be angry at the moment. I'm trying to take heart in the fact that this fucker's stupid action is only going to create more care within our communities.

You were lucky to spend time in Nelson - it's a gorgeous part of the country.
 
There isn't a law in existence that's 100% effective. Surely even you understand that. As noted above, we haven't changed our gun laws in 30 years. Since the last mass shooting. So this happens and we can either (a) take some decisive action that will hopefully result in another 30 years of no mass shootings, if not more; or (b) send some thoughts and prayers.

Given that, according to you, a third of our population own guns, it's a bit surprising there was only one 'good guy with a gun' eh? Your argument that high levels of gun ownership make everyone safer doesn't really seem to hold.
You can't have it both ways - either the gun control laws work, and we aren't a heavily armed population, or there's a huge level of gun ownership here and everyone should be safe as a result

You can't draw an analogy between a armed populace such as in my very sensible state where we are permitted to exercise our unencumbered, natural human right to self-defense including carrying concealed weapons with no permit whatsoever, with the idiocy of making otherwise law-abiding citizens criminals who must leave them at home or risk incarceration.

I'm not 100% sure how I feel about it but I do suspect that if we removed the prohibition from convicted felons ( who has presumably paid their debt to society and are now encouraged to resume citizenship) carrying firearms and allowed them to carry routinely that violence in major cities would probably go down.

In any major city in America any criminal of any color intent on robbery or murder can pretty safely assume that over 1/3 to maybe one-half of all of the blacks he encounters in the course of his day are unarmed because the are prohibited from handling them and they aren't on the way to do anything with a firearm and it's not sensible to carry, risking jail time, when you have no immediate need for a gun. I haven't seen any statistics on it but I suspect in all of the major Killing Fields in America that most of the victims were unarmed. Although many of the victims have a History of Violence themselves sometimes with Firearms. The mere fact that they were unarmed made them a more attractive target. You know, like what just happened there, and in every other Mass killing of recent note.
 
Que thinks if our military came after him...he would win. Lol. He thinks that the only thing that separates us from Mexico, or Venezuela, is our guns. Not our ideals.
 
I think you'll find any similar action taken on my part has been out of some sense of empathy of the victims of mass shootings in America, and a desire to make the world in general a better place. I don't have a problem with people from outside Aotearoa commenting on the situation at all. I do have a problem with people showing zero concern for the actual event, or for humanity in general, because they feel their need to protect their 'right' to own firearms. Yes, I am probably more affected by this tragedy than others because it's so immediate (although I don't know anyone involved, unless I happened to meet any of them while working with refugee agencies). But no, I don't think that only people inside NZ have the right to comment on it. My arguments are the same.

Oh, me too, me too.

I have empathy for all of the victims of any sort of crime in your country who are subjected to living in fear of rape, strong-armed robbery, assault, and murder (with other than a gun) who are left defenceless by your immoral laws. Your self-serving righteous indignation (as you point out) is no more just than mine. I appreciate you being magnanimous and allowing me to rail against something that doesn't affect me personally at all.

Fortunately since you have a fairly homogeneous population of relatively peaceful people you aren't going to suffer the level of mayhem that we would if we were to follow your stupidity.
 
Que thinks if our military came after him...he would win. Lol. He thinks that the only thing that separates us from Mexico, or Venezuela, is our guns. Not our ideals.

What would you say is wrong with the ideals or for that matter the basic humanity, of the citizens of Mexico or Venezuela? Do you feel that it's cultural or genetic that you don't think that they're deserving of the same freedoms that we enjoy in this country?

Nice ascription there, btw. We have the most extensive prohibition against government intruding on our basic human rights of any country in the entire history of the world. Those that abridge the rights of their citizens do so at their peril.

That includes all of them for example freedom of speech which doesn't exist anywhere else in the world and is starting to not exist here. None of the freedoms mean anything without the capacity for the citizenry to secure them for themselves. We founded this country and seized those protection of our natural human rights at the point of evil guns.
 
Last edited:
Fucking Facebook is the problem. Twitter and Instagram, too. Fuckers doing this shit for fame and letting the world watch real-time. That's a problem that needs to be dealt with.
Crazy white dude is the biggest part of the problem but one thing at a time.

You're not wrong about that. His "manifesto" should never be released he should never be given an opportunity to speak in public and no one should ever know his name.

Hell, in this case, from what I've read that was the entire point of the exercise for him. It's why I selected guns it's why he created the message he did and it's why he chose the location everything.

The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize so we shouldn't spread his message ever.

In all such incidents I make a conscious effort to try to not absorb the person's name and yet in each and every case if I think about it I can probably name them.
 
What would you say is wrong with the ideals or for that matter the basic humanity, of the citizens of Mexico or Venezuela? Do you feel that it's cultural or genetic that you don't think that they're deserving of the same freedoms that we enjoy in this country?

I am saying our Founding Fathers created a set of ideals quite unique....but go ahead and look for racism. One sees what they are
 
You can't draw an analogy between a armed populace such as in my very sensible state where we are permitted to exercise our unencumbered, natural human right to self-defense including carrying concealed weapons with no permit whatsoever, with the idiocy of making otherwise law-abiding citizens criminals who must leave them at home or risk incarceration.

I'm not 100% sure how I feel about it but I do suspect that if we removed the prohibition from convicted felons ( who has presumably paid their debt to society and are now encouraged to resume citizenship) carrying firearms and allowed them to carry routinely that violence in major cities would probably go down.

In any major city in America any criminal of any color intent on robbery or murder can pretty safely assume that over 1/3 to maybe one-half of all of the blacks he encounters in the course of his day are unarmed because the are prohibited from handling them and they aren't on the way to do anything with a firearm and it's not sensible to carry, risking jail time, when you have no immediate need for a gun. I haven't seen any statistics on it but I suspect in all of the major Killing Fields in America that most of the victims were unarmed. Although many of the victims have a History of Violence themselves sometimes with Firearms. The mere fact that they were unarmed made them a more attractive target. You know, like what just happened there, and in every other Mass killing of recent note.

“Natural human right of self defense” does not extend across all countries and cultures as a rationale for firearms.
 
“Natural human right of self defense” does not extend across all countries and cultures as a rationale for firearms.

I've tried to make that argument with him in the past ... really, it's not worth wasting your time on it. He just doesn't get it.
 
“Natural human right of self defense” does not extend across all countries and cultures as a rationale for firearms.

Just because we're the only country in the world that sensibly prohibits restriction of that natural human right doesn't mean that the human right does not exist. Any restriction on the most effective method for self defense is a human-rights violation.

Every human being in the world has the natural right to freedom of association freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom to worship (or not), and the freedom to benefit from their own labors.

Just because a lot of cowards in this world have never asserted those rights doesn't mean they don't exist.
 
Just because we're the only country in the world that sensibly prohibits restriction of that natural human right doesn't mean that the human right does not exist. Any restriction on the most effective method for self defense is a human-rights violation.

Every human being in the world has the natural right to freedom of association freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom to worship (or not), and the freedom to benefit from their own labors.

Just because a lot of cowards in this world have never asserted those rights doesn't mean they don't exist.

No, I do not concede this point. Gun ownership, at least in the hands of modern Americans, has not proven itself “the most efficient method for self defense.” If I had to guess, I’d suspect martial arts tips that list.
 
I've tried to make that argument with him in the past ... really, it's not worth wasting your time on it. He just doesn't get it.

No, you don't get it. You value the collective over the beauty of the individuality and diversity of humanity.

Human beings have always yearned to be free. The fact that you choose the tyranny of the majority to protect yourself and little clusters of like-minded tyrannists through agreed upon restrictions on your personal liberties and freedoms is entirely your choice. You can choose to do that. In some cases it might even be reasonable choice.

You don't get to make that choice for any other human being on the planet. Not even if a bunch of you get together and put it to a vote.

As a good little democratic socialist yourself, do you believe in the human right for Venezuelans to decide by democratic majority that they don't want to be good little socialists anymore (or want to choose a different version of it) or is it okay that they are currently facing guns and violence to enforce that tyranny upon them?
 
No, I do not concede this point. Gun ownership, at least in the hands of modern Americans, has not proven itself “the most efficient method for self defense.” If I had to guess, I’d suspect martial arts tips that list.

You would guess wrong.

The FBI's extensive interviews with criminals says you're wrong, but go ahead and believe what you like absent evidence to the contrary.

You've watched entirely too many Steven Seagal movies and have watched way too much MMA. No other method of self defense is universally effective with a modest amount of training. Guns have been the equalizer in power differentials for centuries.

Highly trained special warfare operators who are trained well-practiced and actually experienced in hand-to-hand combat still carry guns for a reason. Even when they're retired.

Human rights are self evident. They don't require your conceding they exist. Violate other people's' natural rights at your own peril. Just because some people choose not to recognize or protect self-evident human rights, or choose not to assert them doesn't mean that they don't quite evidently exist.

Why is it that the same people that can easily see that there are basic moral responsibilities between the interactions between humans and animals (though we may differ in the degree we assign "rights" to animals) cannot see there are basic rights all humans are born with.

Don't get me started on people that assert "animal rights" on the basis of infliction of pain and those that callously refer to a late term fetus as "tissue."
 
Last edited:
Que believes the only laws that applies to him, are the ones he agrees with. Cant get much more clear than that. Tyranny...the definition of it. My beliefs...or none
 
You would guess wrong.

The FBI's extensive interviews with criminals says you're wrong, but go ahead and believe what you like absent evidence to the contrary.

You've watched entirely too many Steven Seagal movies and have watched way too much MMA. No other method of self defense is universally effective with a modest amount of training. Guns have been the equalizer in power differentials for centuries.

Highly trained special warfare operators who are trained well-practiced and actually experienced in hand-to-hand combat still carry guns for a reason. Even when they're retired.

I don’t watch MMA. I have seen half of one Segal movie ever. (Under Siege, of you want to know.)

Further, I’m unconvinced by “FBI interviews,” much less informational from a criminal population.

And the slimmest percentage of us will ever be “highly trained special ware fare operators.” I don’t see that point as applicable.
 
I don’t watch MMA. I have seen half of one Segal movie ever. (Under Siege, of you want to know.)

Further, I’m unconvinced by “FBI interviews,” much less informational from a criminal population.

And the slimmest percentage of us will ever be “highly trained special ware fare operators.” I don’t see that point as applicable.

So what is your basis for asserting that you suspect that martial arts tops the list of the most effective methods of self defense?

First we're talking about efficacy not what may or may not be legal in various jurisdictions. Assume that the entire world is like where I live where any human being who is not a prohibited person meaning you do not have an adjudication of mental incompetence and you're not a convicted felon you can carry a firearm on your person concealed so that you have it with you at all times should you choose to do so.

I can see someone making the argument based on Sun Tzu's maxim that the best weapon is the one closest at hand that it is more likely than not if you are in a situation that require self-defense that having your own hands which you take with you everywhere your go is certainly more likely to be with you at the moment that you need it but in an area where you can easily carry concealed that isn't a factor.

Nothing but a gun is going to equalize the threat presented by a hundred pound woman versus a 280 lb man. Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee aside nothing but a gun is going to equalize the threat between any human being and more than one assailant.

Martial arts requires discipline practice and a very long learning curve to be even modestly effective. You can be trained to effectively and safely use a firearm in an afternoon.

I don't see how you don't understand the comment about the fact that even retired operators arm themselves. If they, with far more experience in training than you and I will ever have find a gun to be efficacious why do you think that you're likely to be better with your hands than they are with a gun? They think hands are inadequate for personal protection. Why do you, with less training thing hands are effective?
 
Last edited:
In Cody Wyoming, they have staged gunfights in front of the Irma, Buffalo Bill's saloon, every night during tourist season. The gunfighters are an example of what Que thinks is a responsible gun owner. A couple years ago, one of these responsible gun owners, left live rounds in his gun. And shot 2 bystanders. Oops.

In one post, he says you cant force human will...and in another...we can force beliefs by having people carry a guns. I wonder which it is?
 
In Cody Wyoming, they have staged gunfights in front of the Irma, Buffalo Bill's saloon, every night during tourist season. The gunfighters are an example of what Que thinks is a responsible gun owner. A couple years ago, one of these responsible gun owners, left live rounds in his gun. And shot 2 bystanders. Oops.

In one post, he says you cant force human will...and in another...we can force beliefs by having people carry a guns. I wonder which it is?

Que believes the only laws that applies to him, are the ones he agrees with. Cant get much more clear than that. Tyranny...the definition of it. My beliefs...or none

Why don't you try arguing with something I actually believe or perhaps something I said or even alluded to instead of your strawman?

Dribble thinks addressing me and third person protects him from being called out for his ineffectual arguments.
 
Back
Top