Multiple dead in shootings at multiple mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand

[Dead Duck]

There's also the question of if their ideology/belief had anything at all to do with the deed. Granted, it probably did in this case... but certainly not every mass killing is political.

Like asking where on the spectrum of "Hamburger to Hotdog Preference" was the Boston Bomber? ****in' hotdog lovers should take the blame for it.

I'm a Taco lover myself.








....wait..... we were talking innuendos, right?

 

[BugI02]

I we can't abstract what we consider important characteristics when talking about a person then we can't talk about anyone at all because we can never know them in totality

As we say in racing, 'You have to turn in sometime'

 

[BugI02]

I'm a Taco lover myself.








....wait..... we were talking innuendos, right?

You prefer it 'innuendo', understood!

 

[Expat]

if i am on the internet can new zealand ban my assault weapons?

 

[jamil]

When all you have is a spectrum, everything looks like a point (on that line)

I get what you wish to say, but if one considers that line to encompass the totality of possible viewpoints then everybody falls on it somewhere. If you want to introduce a crazy axis at right angles to the ideology axis, then we can talk about quadrants rather than left and right and include more nuance

Politics are complicated enough that a one-dimensional line just doesn't work. The two dimensional graph works better, where the x-axis is the traditional left/right line where the more open and empathetic you are, the further left you are, and the more closed and less feeling you are, the further right you are. The y-axis is libertarian (not big-L) vs authoritarian. There's another dimension you could add as well, collectivist vs individualist, but the authoritarians tend to be more collectivist and the libertarians are individualists.

So you can be right or left and still be authoritarian. I think this is why a lot of conservatives don't like to admit that traditional fascism/nationalism is right wing. I say "traditional" because the left labels everyone to the right of them "fascists", even if they're libertarian! Fascism is right wing authoritarian. Left wing authoritarian is Communism.

Possibly another dimension to add would be identitarian vs non-identitiarian, which would account for the identitarian left essentially agreeing with the identitarian right, who think that identity groups should be separate. That's really something kinda new on the left.

 

[jamil]

I don't get labeling people who are simply evil sociopaths as having a belief system that in any way conforms to the left-right political spectrum.

You can't just dismiss them as evil sociopaths. Were all those Germans in WWII evil sociopaths? Or did they just whittle away at the human decency that keeps most people from acting like they are evil sociopaths? What does it take to be willing to take someone else's life? Or to look the other way in tacit approval when someone else does it? It doesn't take mental illness. It only takes belief.

(EDIT: it's been a while. My implied-purple meter might be out of calibration.)

It's like you forgot (or ignore) what happened in the 20th century, when religious non-adherents (Hitler/axis of evil, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.) killed over a hundred million people worldwide, primarily in the name of humanism.

The 95% of humanity at any given time who have religious views (based on some form of belief in God) have done a heck of a lot better at building and maintaining stable, just societies than have the other 5%, throughout history.

You brought religion to a human nature fight. This isn't a religion vs non-religion contest. 100% of all people throughout history believed in god(s) or not. 95% of all people throughout history were less ******* than the other 5% of their peers. You run bad data through the wrong algorithm and something is likely to go wrong. Any belief that's incompatible with human instincts can get you there.

 

[Sylvain]

if i am on the internet can new zealand ban my assault weapons?

No, but you can probably give a heart attack to some politicians in California or DC, knowing that some part of the country are not disarmed.

 

[Denny347]

(EDIT: it's been a while. My implied-purple meter might be out of calibration.)

It's like you forgot (or ignore) what happened in the 20th century, when religious non-adherents (Hitler/axis of evil, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.) killed over a hundred million people worldwide, primarily in the name of humanism.

The 95% of humanity at any given time who have religious views (based on some form of belief in God) have done a heck of a lot better at building and maintaining stable, just societies than have the other 5%, throughout history.

I was just making this statement to emphasise the absurdity of the statement I was quoting, I should have done a better job. I don't think that about ANY group as a whole. On a side note, Hitler was a Christian and more importantly, those who carried out his orders were Christian. Stalin was a Seminary trained priest. Pol Pot was a Buddhist. Again, many of their followers were religious. Many of your 95% of humanity (even more 50 or 60 years ago) who have religious beliefs were also helping those leaders do what they did.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

There's also the question of if their ideology/belief had anything at all to do with the deed. Granted, it probably did in this case... but certainly not every mass killing is political.

Like asking where on the spectrum of "Hamburger to Hotdog Preference" was the Boston Bomber? ****in' hotdog lovers should take the blame for it.

I agree. Just because the guy put his reasons out there, doesn't mean that those are the real reasons, or that they're the only reasons.

When Son of Sam said that his neighbor's dog told him to kill people, nobody looked sideways at the dog. But each person mentioned in the NZ crazy guy's Manifesto catches some blame.

Just because the one guy is more obviously crazy, doesn't mean the other guy isn't just as crazy and just less obviously so, and if we would easily believe that the dog didn't cause murders, can't we even just consider that "Extreme Right" ideology might not have either?

 

[cbhausen]

GOA weighs in via The Daily Caller:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/19/pratt-new-zealand

They're making the NRA look very small these days.

 

[CPT Nervous]

GOA's numbers are catching up. I'm thinking about getting a lifetime membership.

 

[KG1]

This is a prime example of why it’s so vitally important to have constitutional protections as a buffer against knee jerk authoritarian reaction.

 

[NKBJ]

The counterclockwise revolutionary was on an op.
Who was the brains behind the op? Beats me.

 

[BugI02]

Politics are complicated enough that a one-dimensional line just doesn't work. The two dimensional graph works better, where the x-axis is the traditional left/right line where the more open and empathetic you are, the further left you are, and the more closed and less feeling you are, the further right you are. The y-axis is libertarian (not big-L) vs authoritarian. There's another dimension you could add as well, collectivist vs individualist, but the authoritarians tend to be more collectivist and the libertarians are individualists.

So you can be right or left and still be authoritarian. I think this is why a lot of conservatives don't like to admit that traditional fascism/nationalism is right wing. I say "traditional" because the left labels everyone to the right of them "fascists", even if they're libertarian! Fascism is right wing authoritarian. Left wing authoritarian is Communism.

Possibly another dimension to add would be identitarian vs non-identitiarian, which would account for the identitarian left essentially agreeing with the identitarian right, who think that identity groups should be separate. That's really something kinda new on the left.

I think if the new and improved topology for classifying people's politics results in some kind of n-dimensional Calabi-Yau structure it won't prove very useful to the general public

 

[Ingomike]

Back on topic, NZ FUDS and retailers are throwing their brethren under the bus...

Hunting & Fishing pulled all military-style assault weapons from its shelves on Friday immediately after the terrorist attacks on the Christchurch mosques.
"As far as we are concerned, they will never return," chief executive Darren Jacobs said yesterday.
"We stand shoulder to shoulder with New Zealanders in condemning this cowardly attack, and in grief and solidarity with the loved ones of all those killed and injured. We are ready to play our part."
Fish & Game, which represents more than 150,000 anglers and game bird hunters, has also said it does not see any "legitimate recreational hunting use for military assault rifles".

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12214918

 

[Ingomike]

[h=1]WHAT MEDIA WON’T TELL YOU ABOUT THE NEW ZEALAND MASSACRE[/h]New Zealand has far greater gun control than we have in the United States.
New Zealand requires gun-owner licensing, registration for certain guns, universal background checks and more.
Authorities will even investigate gun buyers by interviewing family members before issuing licenses. So-called “assault weapons” are legal, but heavily restricted.
Taken together, the country’s gun control far exceeds what we have in the United States. And yet their extreme restrictions did not stop a bad guy from using firearms to commit a heinous massacre last week.


Second, the shooter broke off the attack only after being confronted with a weapon.
That’s right, a potential victim at the second mosque grabbed an unloaded shotgun and threw it at the shooter. This shattered his car window which presumably made him think that he was being fired upon. The killer sped off, and lives were undoubtedly saved. But few outlets have mentioned this.

Another fact the media won’t tell you is that researchers in the British Journal of Criminology studied Australia’s crime rates and concluded the “gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia.”


https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/19/pratt-new-zealand/

 

[cbhausen]

WHAT MEDIA WON’T TELL YOU ABOUT THE NEW ZEALAND MASSACRE

New Zealand has far greater gun control than we have in the United States.
New Zealand requires gun-owner licensing, registration for certain guns, universal background checks and more.
Authorities will even investigate gun buyers by interviewing family members before issuing licenses. So-called “assault weapons” are legal, but heavily restricted.
Taken together, the country’s gun control far exceeds what we have in the United States. And yet their extreme restrictions did not stop a bad guy from using firearms to commit a heinous massacre last week.


Second, the shooter broke off the attack only after being confronted with a weapon.
That’s right, a potential victim at the second mosque grabbed an unloaded shotgun and threw it at the shooter. This shattered his car window which presumably made him think that he was being fired upon. The killer sped off, and lives were undoubtedly saved. But few outlets have mentioned this.

Another fact the media won’t tell you is that researchers in the British Journal of Criminology studied Australia’s crime rates and concluded the “gun buy-back and restrictive legislative changes had no influence on firearm homicide in Australia.”


https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/19/pratt-new-zealand/

Scooped! See post #450 above...

 

[actaeon277]

And that whole article is exactly what the guy wanted:

1. Guns banned
2. Media talking heads fomenting civil war
3. Elected officials disparaging the other party
4. Hollywood elites sticking their noses in it, and:
5. People successfully believing he was a white supremacist.

(To the media and our elected officials)

Standing slow clap for those in the back of the room, y’all got trolled, he told you you got trolled, and you still believe it. This is why no one likes you, trusts you or believes you.

yup

 

[chipbennett]

I'm not so sure there really is a difference. Humanism arguably is a type of religion, minus a named deity(s). Adherents to either, can be just as passionate, loony, and genocidal.

Perhaps it can be distilled down to as simple as acting purely out of one's self-interest vs acting out of a belief in some form of greater good/purpose.

 

[chipbennett]

Anyone else think that might’ve been intentional in order to get the desired result of banning as many different types of guns as possible?

If that were the case, why wouldn't he have included a semiautomatic handgun?