New Zealand responds to mass shooting

[nigel99 144]

50 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Nigel,

I doubt that anyone is 'more' atheist than I am.  I do not know of any group defined as 'atheists' that have gone on any killing spree; or any other spree to maim people.

Jerry Baumchen

Hi Jerry

my point is that fundamentalist beliefs and extremism is to blame. Arguing over the particular flavour is pointless. Look at the reponces to my post, other than Bigun there is a fair amount of shifting that one type of extremist is ‘worse’ than a posters particular flavour.

My father has always been fascinated with the concept of ‘belief’, and I really think it is at the heart of it.

[TriGirl 268]

5 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Trump's response to this seems to be that he doesn't think it's a real problem. He doesn't reject their philosophy. He doesn't say 'I don't support them'. He doesn't even say anything like 'they are misinterpreting my words'. 
He just says that they aren't a problem

You know, I seem to recall more than one conservative on this forum criticizing the previous president because of his "lack of leadership."  I can't find the post now, but when questioned by another posted about what sort of leadership he wanted, one poster simply reiterated that Obama didn't "lead."

I would like to know how the current group of conservatives here interprets anything the current president says/does regarding the national dialog on this issue as "leading."  How is he standing up for "all Americans"?  Or for the right to life for citizens of our allies? 

If the previous president was so flawed because he didn't "lead," please explain to me how the current president is superior in that respect.  

[billvon 2,400]

8 minutes ago, TriGirl said:

I would like to know how the current group of conservatives here interprets anything the current president says/does regarding the national dialog on this issue as "leading."  How is he standing up for "all Americans"? 

He is giving tacit approval to the far right nationalists.  In extreme cases, this emboldens nazi and white supremacist terrorists.  But at a much more mundane level, he is "leading" by giving the 30% of Americans who want to exclude refugees and illegal immigrants at all costs exactly what they want.

Look at video from any Trump rally for a demonstration of this.

Quote

Or for the right to life for citizens of our allies? 

Having the Saudis kill journalists is a plus in the minds of many Trump supporters.  Remember, the news media is the enemy to them.

[TriGirl 268]

Yes, I know the truth.    I'm calling out the folks who have not denounced his behavior -- particularly those who expressed strong opinions in this forum about the previous office holder.  If Obama was their example of not representing everyone, and especially lack of leadership, then what are the examples of things Trump does that have proven to be "better"? 

Of course, in particular I'm referencing his statements in the wake of the atrocities that are the subject of this thread, just to narrow the responses.

14 hours ago, billvon said:

Having the Saudis kill journalists is a plus in the minds of many Trump supporters.  Remember, the news media is the enemy to them.

Agreed.  And this is my point:  he swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States..." and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same."  I fail to understand how he has accomplished that in this instance in particular.  The holder of this office is often referred to as the leader of the free world.  Yet, I've not seen him LEAD in the wake of this crime (and one in which he is directly praised as an influencer by the accused).

[DJL 232]

21 hours ago, BillyVance said:

All violence are bad. Hell, in just the last couple of weeks, over 120 Christians were slaughtered by Muslims in 3 different countries across Africa.

This has become the "what-about" within the conservative news cycle concerning this attack.  Billy, are you saying that no action should be taken in New Zealand either because the targets were Muslims or that there is terrorism elsewhere?  

Edit, if these victims were not important to you and Fox News before then why are they now?

Edited March 20, 2019 by DJL

[gowlerk 1,914]

56 minutes ago, DJL said:

This has become the "what-about" within the conservative news cycle concerning this attack.

So, just what is it about this horrific act that makes conservatives feel so uneasy? I don't understand this reluctance to accept that the killer shared some of their views. Why can't they simply say that they reject absolutely the kind of thinking that this man had? Could it be that they agree that white mostly Christian countries need to stay that way? The fact is that many of them agree with large parts of his manifesto, so they hesitate to condemn him because they understand and are in agreement with his message. Just like Trump and his "shithole countries" versus Norwegian immigrant rant.

If you feel that way just say so. Right after you clearly reject the violence committed. Stand up and be counted for both of your views. But no, they are for the most part too ashamed to admit their true feelings because they know the wider world will not accept it. White nationalists for the most part are simpering cowards. Like Cadet Bone Spurs.

[billvon 2,400]

33 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

So, just what is it about this horrific act that makes conservatives feel so uneasy? I don't understand this reluctance to accept that the killer shared some of their views. Why can't they simply say that they reject absolutely the kind of thinking that this man had?

Possibly because for years after 9/11, they conflated Islamic extremism and liberal religious tolerance.  They are thus uncomfortable that such a tactic might be applied to them, because they know they would do it in an instant.

It is also notable that many conservatives are supporting Trump's refusal to call this out as an incident of right wing terrorism - given that they attacked Obama nonstop over his reluctance to use the term "Islamic terrorism."

[DJL 232]

On 3/19/2019 at 12:57 PM, BillyVance said:

All violence are bad. Hell, in just the last couple of weeks, over 120 Christians were slaughtered by Muslims in 3 different countries across Africa.

In lieu of a response from Billy Vance etc these killings are brought up purely as a counterpoint to the fact that the victims were Muslims in an episode of global far right extremism.

Furthermore, back in May Trump had a press conference with the Nigerian President that only stood to flame misconceptions about the conflict being along religiously partisan lines.

“We’ve had very serious problems with Christians who have been murdered, killed in Nigeria. We’re going to be working on that problem… because we can’t allow that to happen.”

He then took no actual action in the case.  So with that complete set of information, Billy Vance, who are you disappointed at for having done nothing in the effort to stop the slaughters across Africa?

Edited March 20, 2019 by DJL

[Coreece 190]

21 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

On 3/18/2019 at 11:48 AM, Coreece said:

I think we've been through this before.  We have more guns now than ever, yet crime has been on a downward trend for the last 25+ years. 

Imagine how much lower the crime rate could be, how much safer your community could be

I don't have to, gun crime primarily happens in isolated areas of the country. The vast majority of people in the US live in safe suburban/rural neighborhoods with little to no gun crime despite owning the majority of the 300 million guns in this country.

When I go back home to Detroit tho, it's a little different story.  I've explained this and why I don't carry a gun, especially when I'm in Detroit, but apparently all that content  - along with other data that I was hoping to build upon in the future - is all gone and cannot be found with the new sucky search function. 

 

21 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

if it weren't for so many guns and the ease of acquiring more.

I think reducing the amount/access of guns would certainly reduce the amount of suicides, but primarily because of more failed attempts by methods less effective than using a gun.   I think it's more practical to address the underlying cause of suicide which again has to do with our culture, child-parent relationships, social relationships and how we talk to each other.

A bigger issue might be our mental/healthcare system and how our unique and excessive reliance on psychotropic drugs may play a roll.   This would also help address the lone wolf school shootings/massacres in the suburbs where most of these suicides occur as well.  It's all related.

However, I'm not so convinced that reducing guns will necessarily reduce the number of gun crimes.   Of the 300 million guns, approximately 8000 are used to commit murder every year.  How many of those 300 million guns would we have to get rid of in order to have an effect on that number and get them out of the hands of criminals?   You also have to consider illegal gun dealers and all the additional/counteractive problems that arise when trying to fill a void that prohibitive laws tend to create.  If you address the underlying issues of violence at a fundamental level, then you reduce the demand that fuels the black-market to begin with.

We also need to be mindful of past mistakes like the crime bill of 1994 and It's negative effect on the black community and the viscous cycle that it created.   You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I believe we're a country that's capable of safely owning dangerous tools, and in many ways we've already proven that, tho we still have a long way to go.   I think the quickest and most practical way to get there is to continue addressing our violent culture and socioeconomic disparities in urban areas as it's been proven to work, despite doubling the amount of guns.

[Coreece 190]

4 hours ago, DJL said:

On 3/19/2019 at 4:57 PM, BillyVance said:

All violence are bad. Hell, in just the last couple of weeks, over 120 Christians were slaughtered by Muslims in 3 different countries across Africa.

This has become the "what-about" within the conservative news cycle concerning this attack.

Perhaps, but it was in response to Billvon's post about the Global Terrorism Index.   After reading BV's post I saw all the problems Kenya was having with by Al-Shabab and the beheadings and how 150 Christians were killed in one day, etc, etc.  And then you see how the index placed Kenya #19 right above the U.S at #20 for being the most affected by terrorism. It just suggests how the index is based on a bunch of arbitrary bullshit, and biased at that.

And though the index quickly mentioned that animal rights and environmental activists were the number one cause of terrorist attacks in the U.S, it gives special attention to far right terrorism and how there were 66 deaths and 113 attacks spanning 22 countries in 2 continents over a 5 year period!

And then the same people making a big deal out of this are the same people that were mocking conservatives for blowing Islamic terrorism out of proportion, go figure. . .

 

Edited March 20, 2019 by Coreece

[gowlerk 1,914]

20 minutes ago, Coreece said:

new sucky search function. 

Off topic, but I agree. Search in forums is now nearly useless. I hope it can be strengthened because the archives here were a great resource in the past.

[DJL 232]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

Off topic, but I agree. Search in forums is now nearly useless. I hope it can be strengthened because the archives here were a great resource in the past.

Correct.  I've made searches for very basic things that I used to find easily, namely a writeup about wind limits that I used to quote to people that I'm now unable to find.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

17 minutes ago, Coreece said:

You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I believe we're a country that's capable of safely owning dangerous tools, and in many ways we've already proven that, tho we still have a long way to go.

This is where I tend to disagree. I think Switzerland is a country who has proven that. I think the US has generally proven the opposite in my opinion. As a country as a whole you clearly have proven not to be able to own dangerous tools safely.

The fact that owning a gun increases your risk of being killed in an act of violence is but one of the many indicators of this.

20 minutes ago, Coreece said:

I think reducing the amount/access of guns would certainly reduce the amount of suicides, but primarily because of more failed attempts by methods less effective than using a gun.  

I disagree with this statement as well. Or ta least the qualifier you attached. Suicides are often an impulsive act. Other impulsive acts show that if you make it a bit more difficult to act on this impulse the frequency of acting on the impulse decreases. Examples are lockable cookie jars, or your wife not buying potato chips.

Hence not having a gun in the home decreases the incidence of suicide,mainly because it prevents people from acting impulsively.

Reduction in guns will decrease gun crimes...eventually. I have stated before that I think in the US, due to the facts you raise, this would be over decades or generations though.

[Coreece 190]

Just now, gowlerk said:

23 minutes ago, Coreece said:

new sucky search function. 

Off topic, but I agree. Search in forums is now nearly useless. I hope it can be strengthened because the archives here were a great resource in the past.

I think it will be.  This seems to be a popular forum template used by many websites.  If certain features can't be fixed by site admins, hopefully they'll be addressed by the template owners.

 

2 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

27 minutes ago, Coreece said:

You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I believe we're a country that's capable of safely owning dangerous tools, and in many ways we've already proven that, tho we still have a long way to go.

This is where I tend to disagree. I think Switzerland is a country who has proven that. I think the US has generally proven the opposite in my opinion. As a country as a whole you clearly have proven not to be able to own dangerous tools safely.

I'm talking in terms of the sheer number of people in this country with hundreds of millions of guns and the fact that almost all them live safely with very little to no gun crime.  Again, how many of the 300 million guns will we have to eliminate to have an affect on the 8000 guns used in murders.  And then there are all the other considerations that I mentioned. 

 

14 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Reduction in guns will decrease gun crimes...eventually. I have stated before that I think in the US, due to the facts you raise, this would be over decades or generations though.

But you keep ignoring the fact that we have already cut it in half without reducing the number of firearms.  It's ok to imagine what life would be like without guns, but in the mean time, how about we continue with what's been proven to work and see how far we can take it.

[gowlerk 1,914]

15 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Suicides are often an impulsive act. Other impulsive acts show that if you make it a bit more difficult to act on this impulse the frequency of acting on the impulse decreases.

Which led me to research suicide rates by Nation. The US ranks as the 27th highest rate of 176 listed.At 15.3 per 100K. Lithuania and Russia are at the top with around 31, several small Caribbean island nations have the lowest rate at around 1. I suppose paradise really exists there. Canada is 12.5 almost as high as the US despite far fewer guns.

 

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/suicide-rate-by-country/

[cjwilt 8]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

 

The fact that owning a gun increases your risk of being killed in an act of violence is but one of the many indicators of this.

 

Where do you get this information? Simply owning a firearm increases your risk of being killed in an act of violence? This must be a biased study paid for and produced by some anti firearm organization. Please do share.

 

The fact is in the US where there are the highest amounts of legal firearm ownership, there’s the lowest amount of gun violence. The cities that have the strictest gun control legislation also have the highest amount of gun violence. Chicago is a perfect example.

[gowlerk 1,914]

10 minutes ago, cjwilt said:

The fact is in the US where there are the highest amounts of legal firearm ownership, there’s the lowest amount of gun violence. The cities that have the strictest gun control legislation also have the highest amount of gun violence. Chicago is a perfect example.

You are confusing correlation with causation. Likely deliberately. Chicago does not have high rates of gun violence because it has strong gun laws. It has strong gun laws because it has high rates of gun violence.

[cjwilt 8]

17 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

You are confusing correlation with causation. Likely deliberately. Chicago does not have high rates of gun violence because it has strong gun laws. It has strong gun laws because it has high rates of gun violence.

And those gun laws are doing nothing to reduce the gun violence.

[gowlerk 1,914]

1 minute ago, cjwilt said:

And those gun laws are doing nothing to reduce the gun violence.

It's hard to see how they could with Indiana being a 15 minute drive away.

[cjwilt 8]

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

It's hard to see how they could with Indiana being a 15 minute drive away.

The criminals aren't buying them legally.

 

Even if they are, simply possessing one in Chicago makes one illegal.

 

 

[gowlerk 1,914]

2 minutes ago, cjwilt said:

Even if they are, simply possessing one in Chicago makes one illegal.

Yea, shooting at people is usually illegal too.......

[cjwilt 8]

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Yea, shooting at people is usually illegal too.......

Not if the cops do it.

 

 

 

 

[billvon 2,400]

12 minutes ago, cjwilt said:

The criminals aren't buying them legally.

 

Right.  They just go somewhere where it is VERY easy to buy them, whether legal or not.

Why make it easy for criminals to illegally buy guns?

[Stumpy 256]

47 minutes ago, cjwilt said:

Chicago is a perfect example.

Except for the fact that Chicago is about 10th on the list. Given that most of the ones higher have more lax laws, by your logic the controls are working.

[cjwilt 8]

8 minutes ago, billvon said:

Right.  They just go somewhere where it is VERY easy to buy them, whether legal or not.

Why make it easy for criminals to illegally buy guns?

Who said make it easy? Hell, they rob them out of the rail cars. They will do what ever it takes to get including robbing you and I. How are more laws going to change that? Or are you advocating everyone turn their guns in and having them melted down?

 

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-chicago-railroad-thefts-20170303-story.html