Mass shooting in NZ mosque
Discussion
j_4m said:
And I find the willingness to lay down and let someone do what they want to you similarly ridiculous. Property isn't just 'things', it represents time that I have spent working to acquire those things; personal sacrifices on my behalf.
Would you kill someone to keep a hold of those things, rather than trust the police to catch him and return it to you?There'll be cross over where we agree. I'd try to prevent my things being stolen too, right up to the point where I felt that either myself or the perpetrator's lives were at risk. At which point, nothing is worth it.
If you caught someone keying your car, would you stave their head in? Would you chase someone down the street with a knife for lifting a garden gnome from your front green? Presumably not - so lets compromise to say that in reality there's limits to what ends you would actually pursue, and you would selectively apply how hard you would defend your property - as lightly or extremely as your tastes suit (the law be damned, apparently).
The problem is, with this kind of undeserved sense of righteous preservation, some people start to feel that intangible things like culture, language, and race are things that "belong" to them via personal sacrifice, and decide to take up the mantle in defending them against any that they perceive to be a threat, and we end up with mass shootings.
Wrathalanche said:
Would you kill someone to keep a hold of those things, rather than trust the police to catch him and return it to you?
There'll be cross over where we agree. I'd try to prevent my things being stolen too, right up to the point where I felt that either myself or the perpetrator's lives were at risk. At which point, nothing is worth it.
If you caught someone keying your car, would you stave their head in? Would you chase someone down the street with a knife for lifting a garden gnome from your front green? Presumably not - so lets compromise to say that in reality there's limits to what ends you would actually pursue, and you would selectively apply how hard you would defend your property - as lightly or extremely as your tastes suit (the law be damned, apparently).
The problem is, with this kind of undeserved sense of righteous preservation, some people start to feel that intangible things like culture, language, and race are things that "belong" to them via personal sacrifice, and decide to take up the mantle in defending them against any that they perceive to be a threat, and we end up with mass shootings.
I wouldn't trust the police to do anything. There are far too few of them facing far too many criminals over too large an area to be truly effective, which is the problem. How much power do you give the police in the name of stopping crime? "Those who would give up essential liberty" and all that.There'll be cross over where we agree. I'd try to prevent my things being stolen too, right up to the point where I felt that either myself or the perpetrator's lives were at risk. At which point, nothing is worth it.
If you caught someone keying your car, would you stave their head in? Would you chase someone down the street with a knife for lifting a garden gnome from your front green? Presumably not - so lets compromise to say that in reality there's limits to what ends you would actually pursue, and you would selectively apply how hard you would defend your property - as lightly or extremely as your tastes suit (the law be damned, apparently).
The problem is, with this kind of undeserved sense of righteous preservation, some people start to feel that intangible things like culture, language, and race are things that "belong" to them via personal sacrifice, and decide to take up the mantle in defending them against any that they perceive to be a threat, and we end up with mass shootings.
It's also a huge leap of logic to go from defending yourself to becoming the aggressor, against innocent people no less.
j_4m said:
I wouldn't trust the police to do anything. There are far too few of them facing far too many criminals over too large an area to be truly effective, which is the problem. How much power do you give the police in the name of stopping crime? "Those who would give up essential liberty" and all that.
It's also a huge leap of logic to go from defending yourself to becoming the aggressor, against innocent people no less.
A gun isn't an essential liberty in the UK.It's also a huge leap of logic to go from defending yourself to becoming the aggressor, against innocent people no less.
My wider point, which I think you have essentially backed up, is that to some people there's material things and interests that are more important than another human's life (but maybe in your case just if they are attempting a crime).
I think there is a connection between the de-valuing of life, the willingness for triggers to be pulled when they needn't, and some nation's reluctance to step back from firearm worship. This can lead to:
- Indifference to the victims of a shooting
- Refusal to concede any measures that could make people safer (or even give such measures the benefit of the doubt) out of protectiveness of what is essentially a hobby
- In some cases embolden fringe lunatics to settle their grievances with a gun.
Personally I think they are missing a massive opportunity to become the role model for firearms regulation. Fairly small population, well educated and keen shooters who would highly likely back tougher licencing laws.
They are talking about spending at least £150M on taking away their semi auto firearms. Others are saying it will be more like £400M!!
They could do a lot of good and produce a very, very strong system of firearms licencing with only a few million let alone hundreds of millions.
The initial outlay could be clawed back from FAC holders over time. But they don't want to do that.
They are talking about spending at least £150M on taking away their semi auto firearms. Others are saying it will be more like £400M!!
They could do a lot of good and produce a very, very strong system of firearms licencing with only a few million let alone hundreds of millions.
The initial outlay could be clawed back from FAC holders over time. But they don't want to do that.
red_slr said:
Personally I think they are missing a massive opportunity to become the role model for firearms regulation. Fairly small population, well educated and keen shooters who would highly likely back tougher licencing laws.
They are talking about spending at least £150M on taking away their semi auto firearms. Others are saying it will be more like £400M!!
They could do a lot of good and produce a very, very strong system of firearms licencing with only a few million let alone hundreds of millions.
The initial outlay could be clawed back from FAC holders over time. But they don't want to do that.
This is only a first step done in a hurry. Literally no one is worried about the cost. They are talking about spending at least £150M on taking away their semi auto firearms. Others are saying it will be more like £400M!!
They could do a lot of good and produce a very, very strong system of firearms licencing with only a few million let alone hundreds of millions.
The initial outlay could be clawed back from FAC holders over time. But they don't want to do that.
red_slr said:
Personally I think they are missing a massive opportunity to become the role model for firearms regulation. Fairly small population, well educated and keen shooters who would highly likely back tougher licencing laws.
They are talking about spending at least £150M on taking away their semi auto firearms. Others are saying it will be more like £400M!!
They could do a lot of good and produce a very, very strong system of firearms licencing with only a few million let alone hundreds of millions.
The initial outlay could be clawed back from FAC holders over time. But they don't want to do that.
I tend to agree, hence my comment around the ethics discussion.They are talking about spending at least £150M on taking away their semi auto firearms. Others are saying it will be more like £400M!!
They could do a lot of good and produce a very, very strong system of firearms licencing with only a few million let alone hundreds of millions.
The initial outlay could be clawed back from FAC holders over time. But they don't want to do that.
As with many other countries, there is a finite pot of money that all the existing services have to compete for. The Health System for example is almost broken - $200m+ going there would cause incredible benefits - It would pay for 40 specialists for the next 10 years, probably enable lots of earlier interventions that would save hundred, if not thousands of lives. But now it's being spent on a buyback, that may or may not prevent another mass shooting, given the history in NZ it's possible that even without law change we'd never see anything like this in our lifetimes again.
So a risk of 50 people being killed again vs a definite savings of lives in the health system. I'd like to see a smarter solution than the buyback personally.
Wrathalanche said:
My wider point, which I think you have essentially backed up, is that to some people there's material things and interests that are more important than another human's life (but maybe in your case just if they are attempting a crime).
I think there is a connection between the de-valuing of life, the willingness for triggers to be pulled when they needn't, and some nation's reluctance to step back from firearm worship. This can lead to:
... happens in places like the US
I don't think talk about the US is applicable to this thread. The US is one of the few countries where there is all of no duty to retreat, a constitutional right to firearms, stand your ground laws which authorise use of force, no or almost no gun licencing or registration and in many places a right to carry open or concealed weapons.I think there is a connection between the de-valuing of life, the willingness for triggers to be pulled when they needn't, and some nation's reluctance to step back from firearm worship. This can lead to:
... happens in places like the US
None of that applies here. There must be a valid reason to own firearms and self-defence is not a reason.
You would be better off comparing NZ to Canada or France.
TheGuru said:
I tend to agree, hence my comment around the ethics discussion.
As with many other countries, there is a finite pot of money that all the existing services have to compete for. The Health System for example is almost broken - $200m+ going there would cause incredible benefits - It would pay for 40 specialists for the next 10 years, probably enable lots of earlier interventions that would save hundred, if not thousands of lives. But now it's being spent on a buyback, that may or may not prevent another mass shooting, given the history in NZ it's possible that even without law change we'd never see anything like this in our lifetimes again.
So a risk of 50 people being killed again vs a definite savings of lives in the health system. I'd like to see a smarter solution than the buyback personally.
Personally, I think a more pragmatic solution would be to ban the sale, including second-hand resale, of all MSSAs and large magazines. Those that already have them and haven't yet committed a crime with them are probably safe enough to keep them, but they shouldn't be passed on to new owners. Once the existing owner dies or loses their license, the gun gets destroyed. As with many other countries, there is a finite pot of money that all the existing services have to compete for. The Health System for example is almost broken - $200m+ going there would cause incredible benefits - It would pay for 40 specialists for the next 10 years, probably enable lots of earlier interventions that would save hundred, if not thousands of lives. But now it's being spent on a buyback, that may or may not prevent another mass shooting, given the history in NZ it's possible that even without law change we'd never see anything like this in our lifetimes again.
So a risk of 50 people being killed again vs a definite savings of lives in the health system. I'd like to see a smarter solution than the buyback personally.
Would result in a gradual drop in numbers, while stopping new people getting them. Would probably remove 90%+ of the risk at minimal cost.
uncinqsix said:
Personally, I think a more pragmatic solution would be to ban the sale, including second-hand resale, of all MSSAs and large magazines. Those that already have them and haven't yet committed a crime with them are probably safe enough to keep them, but they shouldn't be passed on to new owners. Once the existing owner dies or loses their license, the gun gets destroyed.
Would result in a gradual drop in numbers, while stopping new people getting them. Would probably remove 90%+ of the risk at minimal cost.
A better idea imho would be to just apply the existing vetting procedure for licence applicants, without banning anything. It seems Tarrant used 2 people he had never met in person off an internet chat room as his personal references and refused to have the police interview him in his home for the licence aplication. If this doesn't raise the suspicions of the police then WTF?Would result in a gradual drop in numbers, while stopping new people getting them. Would probably remove 90%+ of the risk at minimal cost.
DurianIceCream said:
A better idea imho would be to just apply the existing vetting procedure for licence applicants, without banning anything. It seems Tarrant used 2 people he had never met in person off an internet chat room as his personal references and refused to have the police interview him in his home for the licence aplication. If this doesn't raise the suspicions of the police then WTF?
Except it turns out police did interview him at his home, and the two references did meet existing requirements. Was in the press this morning. People lie, people deceive, people make mistakes. Police aren't perfectly resourced. Any system that relies solely on humans getting something right every time is doomed to failure.
So. Back to the religion reason for this atrocity. If there were no religion.. We didn't view race as a problem either, what would be the next group that was attacked?
The poor?
The uneducated?
The high population families?..
The reason I ask is because people always say that if it wasn't religion there would always be a reason to cull people? Tribes died what x 5 to 800 osd years ago.
And what's your reason or proof for your answer.
The poor?
The uneducated?
The high population families?..
The reason I ask is because people always say that if it wasn't religion there would always be a reason to cull people? Tribes died what x 5 to 800 osd years ago.
And what's your reason or proof for your answer.
PorkRind said:
So. Back to the religion reason for this atrocity. If there were no religion.. We didn't view race as a problem either, what would be the next group that was attacked?
The poor?
The uneducated?
The high population families?..
And what's your reason or proof for your answer.
Well I can give an opinion. There will be no proof for it though.The poor?
The uneducated?
The high population families?..
And what's your reason or proof for your answer.
One could presume, if you take out any religious or racial motivation, then political could come next. Someone about to snap may decide to take their anger out on those who disagree with them vocally on a particular subject, like opposition activists, local government, campaigners etc. In many ways, personal politics is as ideological as religion. Capitalists (banks and shopping malls), Socialists (trade unionists), Authoritarians (police), 'The Deep State' (civil servants, doctors, the courts etc). Literally anyone you can lump under some kind of daft banner and find in groups. I'm not going to start listing and weighting how killable people are.
He could simply target fans of a rival sports team during a game, or fans of music he hated at a concert. What's your point? When someone with a grievance about anything decides its worth killing for, its open season on pretty much anyone around them.
Burwood said:
Im baffled by images of woman police in nz stationed near mosques wearing hijabs and 'Police' in Arabic on vests. Strange world we live in
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newzealand-shoo...Burwood said:
Im baffled by images of woman police in nz stationed near mosques wearing hijabs and 'Police' in Arabic on vests. Strange world we live in
At a cemetery, not a mosque. She was guarding the first of the victims’ funerals this week. Wearing the scarf as a mark of respect. Entirely her choice.No idea where you got the Arabic thing from, it clearly says “Police” in English.
Story here ... https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shoo...
k
klootzak said:
Burwood said:
Im baffled by images of woman police in nz stationed near mosques wearing hijabs and 'Police' in Arabic on vests. Strange world we live in
At a cemetery, not a mosque. She was guarding the first of the victims’ funerals this week. Wearing the scarf as a mark of respect. Entirely her choice.No idea where you got the Arabic thing from, it clearly says “Police” in English.
Story here ... https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shoo...
k
Burwood said:
Im baffled by images of woman police in nz stationed near mosques wearing hijabs and 'Police' in Arabic on vests. Strange world we live in
If you visit a place of religious significance, it is courteous to (at least try to) follow customs and traditions. When me and Mrs Digga went to the wedding of Sikh friends, we didn;t kick off awkward about being segregated in the temple during the service, or having to cover our heads. Similarly, when we visited the Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque (incredible building, well worth a visit BTW) we didn't find it unreasonable that we had to have arms, legs and head covered up, rather than trog in there in shorts and T-Shirt.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff