I hope things actually go as planned. NZ seems to me like a calm place but don't know much about it. Hopefully it doesn't backfire in some way, shape, or form.
We could end car accidents and airline terrorism by surrendering all planes and vehicles too. We don’t want to. While getting rid of a thing that causes a specific problem hides the problem it doesn’t stop the problem more guns are owned in America than ever in history but less homes have guns in them. When MORE homes owned guns we didn’t have mass shootings like we do now or an epidemic of kids shooting kids- the why is very important. As we have seen with the U.K., when the guns go out but the problems stay you still have killing- just not with guns. It’s much harder to carry out violence on a large scale without semiautomatic weapons- but still possible. When a person has cancer of the brain and complains of nausea you don’t cut out the whole brain and you don’t just treat the symptoms- you remove the tumor that causes them. I’m glad it works in NZ and wish them well though- but America sure isn’t NZ.
Lol. I was thinking that part was kinda true but didn’t want to validate the insult because I’ve thought highly of every Kiwi I’ve met, and think it’s a beautiful and wonderful country. It isn’t perfect, and not everyone can or would want to live there- but I think it’s an awesome country with awesome people and have no ill will towards Nz. It’s just fair when comparing it to America to note the very different cultures, demographics, geography, etc. and whenever the issue of gun violence comes up I think it’s implrtsmt to realize that this kind of violence isn’t caused by guns but perpetrated by guns. Not all shootings or shooters are the same- but for much of the world this is a new problem and historically in many places there was the same or more risk of these epidemics decades ago but they didn’t happen. Figuring out why is what interests me. But to each their own. Not every country should be ran the same as any other. Each is different and if it works for someone they should do it
Oh yeah, America has way more politics involved in everything, because of the sheer size of their government. They also have the Bill of Rights right in front of them, whereas here we don't really do that, although we do still have one
Size and population play a big part- and the culture. America was built on guns and violence- literally. And even asides wars and the like, for many generations of Americans who trace their roots back that far in the country, guns were part of life because the country was a vast “frontier” where a gun was a necessary tool and evolved into a hobby, passion, and cultural symbol that means many thing to many people. Couple that with the size you mentioned- in a rural part of the nation where the population may be less dense than even Nz and people still hunt and have wild animals in their backyards, guns make functional sense versus a large city where people are packed on top of people and using a gun isn’t as common or practical on daily life- and we can see the disconnect where many people wouldn’t see a use for guns in their lives and many rely on them still. It’s a complex mess. Lol. Being less “gun crazy” would likely be good for us here though. But a total ban would likely go badly.
You are right to identify that the gun debate is largely rural versus urban, but it's not the sole reason that the second amendment exists in the first place. It's to allow people to defend themselves against potential tyranny, and New Zealand is the prime example of what happens when that right is taken away. The terrorist acquired his guns legally, creating no-gun zones did nothing to stop him, only made his victims powerless to resist. And now New Zealand is literally becoming fascist in response. They banned his manifesto and the video, banned information that people are free to know and interpret on their own. They censored the hell out of their internet and attempted to get website owners to doxx their users so that they can be persecuted for wanting to know the truth. They are jailing people for just owning a copy of the manifesto, they are further restricting the ability of people to defend themselves.
Monopoly on ideas and truth is fascism. And although it is sad that 50 people lost their lives, it is no excuse for the entire population of NZ to lose their freedom.
@firmlee_grasspit
on of the big problem (idk if someone already said it i kinda skimmed the stuff but am in a bit of a rush)
is that america has one of the biggest black markets for guns in the world.
there are also a lot of unregistered legally owned guns out, stuff gotten from inheritance and the like. If you took away the legal guns you wouldnt really change the amount of gun related killings in america at all. Most are suicides, almost all of the others are done with illegally obtained weapons which is on a much larger scale than other similar countries.
Hey. Imagine if...there was some sort of legislation, maybe,oh, I dunno, the Films, Videos, and Publications Act 1993 to act against displaying media or texts that are likely to incite violence. What a world that would be, huh?
"Essentially what you have here is a document that's promoting a hateful ideology, but going further than that, it's talking about specific targets, it's talking about specific means, and it's talking about specific justifications for carrying out atrocities and cruelty.
"You can't stamp out abhorrent ideas through censorship - we're very clear about that - but there's a line, and that line is set when you are actively engaged and seriously engaged in persuading people to copy your lead."
Now imagine if these were direct quotes from the Chief Censor. https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/chief-censor-explains-exactly-why-he-banned-alleged-christchurch-gunmans-manifesto?variant=tb_v_5
How did I find those incredibly secretive quotes? By trying to find out if anyone had been arrested for sharing it. So far, I haven't found anything on people getting jailed for it like you were saying, unless "They are jailing people for just owning a copy of the manifesto" means that there is a-
In that case they should also ban Mein Kampf and the Communist manifesto, if you want to go down that road. Yeah, no shit he was inciting violence, but it's up to the people to decide whether they are mental enough to actually follow it or not. They are trying to stamp out ideas they don't like, that's literally what censorship is. If they wanted people to know exactly why his ideas were bad and flawed, they would not restrict access to the document, so that it could be discussed and dismantled.
Censoring anything is an attempt to suppress the problem instead of addressing it. You don't de-radicalise people by forcing them underground, they only grow more resentful. You talk some sense into them by actually explaining why either their ideas or their methods are flawed. What is your point?
That was directed as a response to @mrfahrenheit, whoops.
And about the last part, I know that the threat is something like 10 years of jail time for owning a copy and 14 for distributing it. And I heard some people already were charged. Once I have a chance to look this up I will post it separately and tag you there
So NZ isn't addressing the problem by bringing new gun laws into affect and discussing the factors surrounding it openly? Also, that point about why his ideas were bad and flawed is brought up within the article linked above. People are talking about it, just because they don't have his manifesto or video of a horrific shooting, doesn't mean they don't know anything about it.
If you can't read what your enemy wrote, how can you understand them? For those that want to know his motivation and his story, he clearly outlines that in his manifesto. And I can give you examples if you want.
For one, the media was quick to claim that he was radicalised on the internet, and blame sites like 4chan and 8chan. When in his manifesto he clearly states that it was his trip to France, witnessing the destructive impact of mass immigration, and the consequences of a jihadi terrorist attack. But you wouldn't know about it, would you?
For second, he states in his manifesto that it didn't have to be guns. He said that his weapon of choice could be anything, explosives, cars, he only chose guns because it would cause the reaction that we are seeing now and scare US gun owners that they might be next. Banning guns is playing right into his hands, but you just like the rest of them are oblivious to it, because you would rather fear the unknown than know your enemy.
The media already lied about him and his motivations. The left and the establishment is trying to cover up the fact that is was them that pushed the situation far enough to radicalize him, and try to blame the right. When in his manifesto he explicitly states that he identifies as an "eco-fascist" and here;s his direct quote: "The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People's Republic of China".
The only way for us to know the truth, is to read this stuff ourselves. You can't trust the media, they are pathological liars. You can't trust the governments, they are only interested in covering up their own mess. But you can trust yourself to be educated and make your own conclusions.
By taking away people's right to read the manifesto and have such views, NZ government is trying to police people's opinions, even if they have done nothing to break the law. So your argument for censhorship is null and void.
If only the NZ media had covered this. Oh wait, they did. They didn't show any footage, they just read small relevant parts of the manifesto. The NZ government isn't policing opinions, as NZer's have freedom of expression under the Bill of Rights Act. They are censoring information that has been deemed grossly offensive and harmful. America does it, China does it, everyone does it. Please link sources as to where the NZ media chose to knowingly lie about him. And NZ has had tight gun laws for a while, calling me a simple sheep won't change that.
▼
deleted
· 5 years ago
I don’t have too much to add, but instead of an individual relying on media to read parts of manifesto, it should just be readily available to read for that individual. People will continue to massacre, whether the text is viewable or not. Might as well let the people be educated. As far as gun control is concerned...I believe in mental health exams, even though I’m aware they are easy enough to fool. If I had to choose a side, I would say no gun control. Everyone knows governments stockpile weapons, and sometimes act in complete disinterest and opposition of the people. In a time of tyranny, the people should have guns to retaliate. Having severe gun control just keeps weapons in the hands of government and black market dealers/purchasers, which in turn can make its way to unstable people and/or terrorists.
Policing politically relevant information such as this, is policing opinions, and you can't prove that it's harmful because it's a piece of paper / file that can't physically attack anyone. We don't have laws against ideas, we have laws against people. It's not illegal to be a bad person, it's illegal to commit bad actions. Bringing up China as a paragon of free speech is dumb, and please provide me with examples of US censoring such information. And for the media, I'm not fully certain on NZ, but US media definitely did.
Aside from all this, you are ignoring my main points.
1. If nobody is allowed to read the manifesto, they can be fed any lie about the situation.
2. Banning political speech, even offensive political speech is not freedom of expression / speech and will only radicalize people more
3. Enforcing more gun laws is pointless, because the terrorist said himself that he would commit the attack no matter what weapon he'd use.
if he had wanted too he could have very easily built a bomb with stuff bought down the road in the store with untraceable cash. Or he could have bought one of many legal to own and cultivate plants that can be developed into high concentration poisons. He said what he wanted to happen because of his actions. The NZ government and media decided what he wanted the result to be was not fit for the public eye and then walked right into exactly what he said he wanted. That's either a malicious government or an incompetent government. There are no other options.
Best solution to SOBs like him is an informed, vigilant, and armed population.
Knowing is half the battle. Attention to detail, detail is key. An armed society might not always be polite, but polite never stops murderers.
think the guys that do shootings will be turning in there guns? no the ones turning in there guns are the one that are law abiding citizens that wouldn't do a mass shooting. the next shooting will ether be guns that aren't turned in or guns made illegal. this will solve nothing. but ya dance and clap and believe the government is protecting you.
Ok- so, number one killer is... traffic deaths. Do you know what the ultimate cause of every single accident is? Excessive speed. Every one. It’s physics. If all objects were going 0mph, there would be no accidents. So even if the car isn’t moving and a tree falls on it- the tree was going too fast. It may be impractical to impart a 0mph speed limit- but let’s say they could and did? Some people and objects would still break it. You’d never have 0 traffic accidents. If all the cars and banned and destroyed there are motorcycles. Dump those and there are bicycles, horses, Strong pigs, roller skates... always some way to break the law. However- you wouldn’t have 0 accidents but you would see a HUGE decrease- and it would be much easier to catch those people who were breaking the law because in a world without speed, the guy on the Harley really stands out. We have seen it with drugs, suicides, junk food, any number of things. The simple act of making it so that it’s just a little.....
... harder to do something will deter the majority of people from doing it. Suicide is a perfectt example. It tends to be impulsive. If a person dead set on killing themselves is stopped for even a day or an hour, they are much less likely to go through with it. They may have those thoughts again, but that attempt will be stopped simply because there was a barricade in the way, or a friend came over. Those few people who are so committed that they will go out of their way won’t be stopped by a barricade or inconvenience. They’ll just pick anything that works and do it. Even in straight jackets in padded rooms the determined have found ways to kill them selves. So it can’t be stopped- but drastically reduced. I’m not arguing I think it’s the right choice. You’re 100% correct that the main people such drastic measures affect are law abiding folks who aren’t a danger. There are philosophical and social down sides and all sorts of complex reasons why complete disarmament might not be...
... best or best for everyone. What I am saying though is that the argument that taking away guns isn’t 100% effective in stopping fun crime isn’t a good argument because few if anything’s are 100% effective. Most people don’t care and would gladly do it for 10% decrease or even of it saved one life. Not saying they are right or wrong- even if I personally do not agree that such a huge sacrifice and all the implications aren’t justified by a small gain in safety- but I am saying that it is 2019 and guns are a hot topic. People want to take away gun rights and anyone who is serious and responsible with guns and about freedom and self accountability or just plain fixing problems instead of using bandaids- needs to make better arguments than the played out “its a right!” Or “the founding fathers said..” etc. we have to be realistic because if we use hyperbole we are no better than the worst of those who spread false fear and untruths to scare and bully away gun rights. We have to be...
.. honest and admit when the other side has a point, but we also have to show the flaws in their logic. So yes- it’s sound logic that banning all guns would make some sort of reduction in gun crime- but would it make you safer? Look at the U.K. and decide if you’d rather be beaten or stabbed to death or shot. Is it the RIGHT thing to do or is it a reactionist solution? Is their hard data to back up claims that an society without guns is safer, or are people mortgaging the freedoms of others based on a guess or a feeling? If you could PROVE to me that handing in my own guns would end school shootings and mass shootings I would do it. But don’t count on that proof because these things are symptoms of a larger problem that didn’t exist decades ago when guns were more common world wide.
I'm having difficulty understanding what side you're on. Because you argue for more regulation, despite the fact that there will always be illegal ways to obtain guns, despite the fact that banning guns from particular zones will not stop people from breaking that law and making people in those zones unable to defend themselves. But at the same time you also acknowledge that imposing those restrictions will not deter some people and force others to just pick a different means of murder.
If you were to state your precise position that would be nice. I inferred most of your convictions, but still.
And besides, this argument is pointless anyways, given the terrorist himself admitted that he could use any other weapon that could cause mass harm, and he only chose guns to further divide people between these two positions. And did so successfullty, might I add.
it doesnt make you sheep to agree with the government. It does make you sheep to agree with a government that is actively keeping information required to make an objective opinion away from its people and doing exactly what the mass shooter wanted you to do.
A wolf attacks the farm, slaughtering many sheep and injuring the shepherd before leaving fat and happy. The shepherd decides to remove the teeth of the sheep, and they all agree. None of the sheep can kill each other by biting. The wolves and foxes watching from outside laugh while other farm's sheepdogs can only shake their heads and hope their own shepherd isn't so foolish.
@vitklim- same side I always am. Reason. The fact that I have opinions or feelings on an issue doesn’t automatically wave fairy magic over it and make it black and white- right and wrong, and where anyone who would say anything bad about it is taking nonsense. There are tons of valid points and perspectives and I can’t deny that. When someone has a point they have a point. However one individuals truth is seldom the “truth” nor even the closest version of objective truth we can know. My position is that in the United States people should be able to own guns- with a minimum as prudent of legislation to ensure the responsible operation and ownership of those guns. If people choose to waive their individual rights that’s their business. Overseas- they can do whatever works for them.
So many Americans here that can’t comprehend giving up their precious guns. We get it: you’d rather see more children killed than any legislation. After Sandy Hook, it’s clear that you don’t mind small children being murdered as it’s a small price to pay to keep your guns.
@famousone Make that double yawn. Shootings in the U.S. will continue to happen without citizens owning guns, because the black market will always exist. This is a truth. Removing weapons from law abiding citizens will only result in fear. The government will still have weapons. Criminals/people outside the government will still have weapons. What the fuck will the law abiding citizen do if the government turns on the people? Or perhaps worse, a criminal organization decides to pillage citizens? Use your brain, mate.
What an insightful, thought-provoking, relevant comment! Thank you, guest. The sheeple of this site are sure to wake up due to your words of absolute truth. I vow to spread you words of wisdom, “New Islamland!”
@firmlee_grasspit
is that america has one of the biggest black markets for guns in the world.
there are also a lot of unregistered legally owned guns out, stuff gotten from inheritance and the like. If you took away the legal guns you wouldnt really change the amount of gun related killings in america at all. Most are suicides, almost all of the others are done with illegally obtained weapons which is on a much larger scale than other similar countries.
"You can't stamp out abhorrent ideas through censorship - we're very clear about that - but there's a line, and that line is set when you are actively engaged and seriously engaged in persuading people to copy your lead."
Now imagine if these were direct quotes from the Chief Censor. https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/chief-censor-explains-exactly-why-he-banned-alleged-christchurch-gunmans-manifesto?variant=tb_v_5
How did I find those incredibly secretive quotes? By trying to find out if anyone had been arrested for sharing it. So far, I haven't found anything on people getting jailed for it like you were saying, unless "They are jailing people for just owning a copy of the manifesto" means that there is a-
Censoring anything is an attempt to suppress the problem instead of addressing it. You don't de-radicalise people by forcing them underground, they only grow more resentful. You talk some sense into them by actually explaining why either their ideas or their methods are flawed. What is your point?
And about the last part, I know that the threat is something like 10 years of jail time for owning a copy and 14 for distributing it. And I heard some people already were charged. Once I have a chance to look this up I will post it separately and tag you there
For one, the media was quick to claim that he was radicalised on the internet, and blame sites like 4chan and 8chan. When in his manifesto he clearly states that it was his trip to France, witnessing the destructive impact of mass immigration, and the consequences of a jihadi terrorist attack. But you wouldn't know about it, would you?
For second, he states in his manifesto that it didn't have to be guns. He said that his weapon of choice could be anything, explosives, cars, he only chose guns because it would cause the reaction that we are seeing now and scare US gun owners that they might be next. Banning guns is playing right into his hands, but you just like the rest of them are oblivious to it, because you would rather fear the unknown than know your enemy.
The only way for us to know the truth, is to read this stuff ourselves. You can't trust the media, they are pathological liars. You can't trust the governments, they are only interested in covering up their own mess. But you can trust yourself to be educated and make your own conclusions.
By taking away people's right to read the manifesto and have such views, NZ government is trying to police people's opinions, even if they have done nothing to break the law. So your argument for censhorship is null and void.
@firmlee_grasspit @famousone @internet
Aside from all this, you are ignoring my main points.
1. If nobody is allowed to read the manifesto, they can be fed any lie about the situation.
2. Banning political speech, even offensive political speech is not freedom of expression / speech and will only radicalize people more
3. Enforcing more gun laws is pointless, because the terrorist said himself that he would commit the attack no matter what weapon he'd use.
Knowing is half the battle. Attention to detail, detail is key. An armed society might not always be polite, but polite never stops murderers.
If you were to state your precise position that would be nice. I inferred most of your convictions, but still.
And besides, this argument is pointless anyways, given the terrorist himself admitted that he could use any other weapon that could cause mass harm, and he only chose guns to further divide people between these two positions. And did so successfullty, might I add.