Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

White supremacy and the internet

Recommended Posts

So have been listening to all the news in the wake of the NZ terror acts. A few things come to mind:

1.  The NZ PM went right to guns as the cause and what needed to change, Despite it being 20 yrs since the last event even similar despite relatively lax gun laws there. 

Why instead is she not calling for a crackdown on white supremacist’s ability to use social media to promulgate their message and allow people to self radicalize?  It seems that, far more than cracking down on tools would pay dividends. 

Ill get to the rest later. I have to go shoot my assault weapon in a rifle class. 

Discuss...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Why instead is she not calling for a crackdown on white supremacist’s ability to use social media to promulgate their message and allow people to self radicalize?  It seems that, far more than cracking down on tools would pay dividends.

How would one go about doing that, without trampling all over their Free Speech Rights & shit? 

Weren't you one of the elk saying it was important to respect those Free Speech Rights, after Berkeley & Charlottesville?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that an effort to reduce the ability of terrorists to "livestream" their acts of violence and provide a press package that promulgates their views is also important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So have been listening to all the news in the wake of the NZ terror acts. A few things come to mind:

1.  The NZ PM went right to guns as the cause and what needed to change, Despite it being 20 yrs since the last event even similar despite relatively lax gun laws there. 

Why instead is she not calling for a crackdown on white supremacist’s ability to use social media to promulgate their message and allow people to self radicalize?  It seems that, far more than cracking down on tools would pay dividends. 

Ill get to the rest later. I have to go shoot my assault weapon in a rifle class. 

Discuss...

 

I was reading an article in one of the local papers here in south island, where they were talking about the predicted effects on the  gun laws.

One person interviewed was a gun dealer, who said that he had four orders for new semiautomatic in the last day, where he usually sells one every week or two. So there is ammosexual hysteria here, too.

But most important, the GUN DEALER said the laws were long overdue for an overhaul, as they were much too lax and it was way too easy to get a gun here.

In the mean time, there is much discussion about a gun club down in Dunedin where the shooter used to hang out and practice. A local hunter notified police over what he found to be a disturbing atmosphere in the club. Gun club members where shocked, however, and thought he seemed quiet and well mannered. The Christchurch terrorist, not the hunter that reported them.

Word is he decided Dunedin was too small and out of the way to make a good statement, so he brought his plan to earthquake ravaged Christchurch, where there are more people and, presumably, Muslim targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, phillysailor said:

I think that an effort to reduce the ability of terrorists to "livestream" their acts of violence and provide a press package that promulgates their views is also important.

See Erdogan is playing shooters stream at political rallies what a fuck up this will turn into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

I was reading an article in one of the local papers here in south island, where they were talking about the predicted effects on the  gun laws.

One person interviewed was a gun dealer, who said that he had four orders for new semiautomatic in the last day, where he usually sells one every week or two. So there is ammosexual hysteria here, too.

But most important, the GUN DEALER said the laws were long overdue for an overhaul, as they were much too lax and it was way too easy to get a gun here.

In the mean time, there is much discussion about a gun club down in Dunedin where the shooter used to hang out and practice. A local hunter notified police over what he found to be a disturbing atmosphere in the club. Gun club members where shocked, however, and thought he seemed quiet and well mannered. The Christchurch terrorist, not the hunter that reported them.

Word is he decided Dunedin was too small and out of the way to make a good statement, so he brought his plan to earthquake ravaged Christchurch, where there are more people and, presumably, Muslim targets.

I had a couple of certifiable types at my local gun club, when the other 98% were perfectly respectable and exercised superb gun safety and awareness. 

A very good friend went from being a 98%’er to a scary due to hard drugs. Started cutting down .308 rifles into pistols for concealment for the bikie scum and then got into explosives before topping himself with a handgun. 

Drugs and guns don’t mix. This is where regulation should be seen as a good thing, a hard drug conviction should be an automatic showstopper for a min period of 5 years , and mental health issues should also be a weighting factor. I love shooting and have zero issue with restrictions, Ive seen how drugs and mental health aligned with guns can have horrible consequences . 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Did you ever figure out if keeping your nation ethnically homogeneous was racist or not Jeffreaux?

BINGO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So have been listening to all the news in the wake of the NZ terror acts. A few things come to mind:

1.  The NZ PM went right to guns as the cause and what needed to change, Despite it being 20 yrs since the last event even similar despite relatively lax gun laws there. 

Because the shooter made a point of stating that he moved there because their gun laws were lax enough to do what he wanted. The terrorist pointed out what enabled him in this act, and combined with the evidence of the fact he couldn't do that at home where he came from, that kind of paints a pretty clear target for change. 

 

2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

 Why instead is she not calling for a crackdown on white supremacist’s ability to use social media to promulgate their message and allow people to self radicalize?  It seems that, far more than cracking down on tools would pay dividends. 

Might be because the social media platform in question got out in front of a government mandate and took on the task themselves. Facebook has already stated they are working with the government to work out how they can better prevent such vile & unintended use of their technology. Gun manufacturers and retail outlets really aren't in that position because the guns were used for the purpose they were designed - to wound and/or kill.

Like it or not, the social media platform didn't kill people. The message didn't kill people. The bullets fired from guns did. That's going to get focus because, logically speaking, it's far more relevant to all those people's deaths than the excuses the psychopath spat out to justify his murder spree.

 

I honestly don't believe you started this thread for any reason but to reel in the usual suspects trying to line up a gotcha or three. You already tried that shit within a hours of the massacre itself. I don't believe you've changed any since the massacres on your soil. Willing to be proven wrong. Not expecting it.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you could just get your head out of your barrel and think with some semblance of cognitive thought process. But then why let the odd shooting get in the way of what 'you' want. Fuck those that think differently, they can get the fuck out of the way. Must be nice knowing you have some lead to show them you mean business if needed. Tosser.

Firstly, as you are so want to point out to others with regard the US, what the fuck is it to you. You are a gun loving seppo*, so stay the fuck out of other countries shit. You and your elk have been doing it for a long time and it usually ends up a clusterfuck. You then sit back, look at the mess, and go 'why does everyone think we are a bunch of cunts'.

Secondly, there is a push from her to get social media to do more. They got onto it once it was pointed out, but you would think in today's world their algorithms would be able to spot shit like this. But then again, just another pesky fact for you to ignore in your blind defense of what 'you' want.

As for our licensing law, you obviously think it is fine as it is. But then again you probably know fuck all about it, just what the little voices in your head tell you. Personally I find it wrong that I could get the basic gun license, walk into a gun shop and buy a Barret .50. I could also buy as much ammo as I wanted, including armor piercing. I could then walk down the road and on sell it to anyone I wanted to. No need to confirm he has a license, or a brain cell. No need to e4ven get a name. Just take the money and walk off.

But that's okay Jeff, as long as you get to do what you want. I guess the last thing you really want is for a reasonable discussion on our gun laws and whether they need to be changed in some way. I can only presume that you are just concerned it might flow over borders and waken the multitude of Americans who are also concerned.

In the meantime you really should get back to the range, have some fun shooting at bits of paper, and shut the fuck up about our place.

* Many and most Americans are not included in this comment as I have found in my experience the majority of you are reasonably nice people. Unfortunately all countries have their assholes that can reflect badly on the whole nation.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think registration has limited if any benefits but it's an overhead that doesn't do much harm either. Pity the registry databases are somewhat less than reliable, as are the cops' reading ability WRT serial numbers.

I think *licensing* of firearms owners should be mandatory and our laws WRT a demonstrated need for a firearm licence are pretty well right.

WRT the mass murder to make a statement brigade, I do think we need to re-think our approach. Fast execution would be good, failing that solitary confinement for full term of life. Yeah they'll probably go insane, so what, anyone who commits a mass attack like this is insane to begin with.

However that doesn't address the 'attention seeking' and desire to make a statement. I strongly suggest an extension of the 'right to be forgotten' push to a mandatory  erasure from history. Remove them from every place possible to reach. Right down to their birth certificate if possible. No media mentions past conviction. No quotes. No rants on any medium. Nothing.

Remove their ability to promote their 'cause' and remove them from history.

FKT

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see that Jeff has zeroed in on who the real victims are.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Or you could just get your head out of your barrel and think with some semblance of cognitive thought process. But then why let the odd shooting get in the way of what 'you' want. Fuck those that think differently, they can get the fuck out of the way. Must be nice knowing you have some lead to show them you mean business if needed. Tosser.

Firstly, as you are so want to point out to others with regard the US, what the fuck is it to you. You are a gun loving seppo*, so stay the fuck out of other countries shit. You and your elk have been doing it for a long time and it usually ends up a clusterfuck. You then sit back, look at the mess, and go 'why does everyone think we are a bunch of cunts'.

Secondly, there is a push from her to get social media to do more. They got onto it once it was pointed out, but you would think in today's world their algorithms would be able to spot shit like this. But then again, just another pesky fact for you to ignore in your blind defense of what 'you' want.

As for our licensing law, you obviously think it is fine as it is. But then again you probably know fuck all about it, just what the little voices in your head tell you. Personally I find it wrong that I could get the basic gun license, walk into a gun shop and buy a Barret .50. I could also buy as much ammo as I wanted, including armor piercing. I could then walk down the road and on sell it to anyone I wanted to. No need to confirm he has a license, or a brain cell. No need to e4ven get a name. Just take the money and walk off.

But that's okay Jeff, as long as you get to do what you want. I guess the last thing you really want is for a reasonable discussion on our gun laws and whether they need to be changed in some way. I can only presume that you are just concerned it might flow over borders and waken the multitude of Americans who are also concerned.

In the meantime you really should get back to the range, have some fun shooting at bits of paper, and shut the fuck up about our place.

* Many and most Americans are not included in this comment as I have found in my experience the majority of you are reasonably nice people. Unfortunately all countries have their assholes that can reflect badly on the whole nation.

Quite a beat down.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I think registration has limited if any benefits but it's an overhead that doesn't do much harm either. Pity the registry databases are somewhat less than reliable, as are the cops' reading ability WRT serial numbers.

I think *licensing* of firearms owners should be mandatory and our laws WRT a demonstrated need for a firearm licence are pretty well right.

WRT the mass murder to make a statement brigade, I do think we need to re-think our approach. Fast execution would be good, failing that solitary confinement for full term of life. Yeah they'll probably go insane, so what, anyone who commits a mass attack like this is insane to begin with.

However that doesn't address the 'attention seeking' and desire to make a statement. I strongly suggest an extension of the 'right to be forgotten' push to a mandatory  erasure from history. Remove them from every place possible to reach. Right down to their birth certificate if possible. No media mentions past conviction. No quotes. No rants on any medium. Nothing.

Remove their ability to promote their 'cause' and remove them from history.

FKT

I'd think about erasing their offspring too, if any.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-zealanders-voluntarily-surrender-guns-after-christchurch-attack?ref=home

Quote

A number of New Zealanders have voluntarily given up their weapons after a shooting at a Christchurch mosque killed 50 last week, the New Zealand Herald reports. John Hart, a farmer who had a semi-automatic rifle for pest control on his farm, told the newspaper he gave up his gun to the police Monday and designated it “for destruction.” "Once you accept that these things can be harmful, in the wrong hands, the trade-off is a small inconvenience,” Hart told the newspaper. “It's not a big deal not having it anymore. I couldn't, in good conscience, say they shouldn't be around if I still had one.” Fey Hag wrote on Twitter that she had been using guns since the age of nine but turned in her family's weapons to police. “Today I requested that those guns be handed in for destruction,” she wrote. Another Twitter user also said they surrendered their weapon after 31 years of owning a firearm. “This is one of the easiest decisions I have ever made,” they wrote.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

I'd think about erasing their offspring too, if any.

-DSK

That becomes a 'sins of the father' thing. I can't agree there. It also doesn't take into account the mother and what if anything she knew about it all.

I'm tired of this sort of shit though. To a limited extent removing enabling tools like semiauto/full auto firearms works. Only to a limited extent though, it wouldn't stop someone with my knowledge base, skills and tools and that goes for pretty much everyone else who has a decent metalworking shop. Removing them takes away any chance they have to go down in history - they become a forgotten non-person, someone who did something so unforgivable that their very existence is forgotten.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Good to see that Jeff has zeroed in on who the real victims are.

He’s the quintessential ugly American..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ishmael said:

Yeah, I shed no tears 20+ years ago when I handed in my semiauto firearms. Port Arthur did it for me.

I still have bolt action guns for pest control and that's quite sufficient in 99% of cases. The other 1% is covered by special needs licensing.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny (Not really) that one of the shooter's pet peeves was "Immigrants"..... When he was an Ozzy in EnZed......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:
26 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I'd think about erasing their offspring too, if any.

 

That becomes a 'sins of the father' thing. I can't agree there. It also doesn't take into account the mother and what if anything she knew about it all.

I'm tired of this sort of shit though. To a limited extent removing enabling tools like semiauto/full auto firearms works. Only to a limited extent though, it wouldn't stop someone with my knowledge base, skills and tools and that goes for pretty much everyone else who has a decent metalworking shop. Removing them takes away any chance they have to go down in history - they become a forgotten non-person, someone who did something so unforgivable that their very existence is forgotten.

I'm not so much thinking of punishment, something painless. I'm thinking more of erasing their genes from humankind as well as their persons.

The only sort of weapon I've considered building in decades is a pumpkin-chucker trebuchet. I got interested in the physics and think I have a way of making one break all the records. But it wouldn't hurt anyone except the few people who would be deprived of the pie that would have been made out of the pumpkin......

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I think registration has limited if any benefits but it's an overhead that doesn't do much harm either. Pity the registry databases are somewhat less than reliable, as are the cops' reading ability WRT serial numbers.

I think *licensing* of firearms owners should be mandatory and our laws WRT a demonstrated need for a firearm licence are pretty well right.

WRT the mass murder to make a statement brigade, I do think we need to re-think our approach. Fast execution would be good, failing that solitary confinement for full term of life. Yeah they'll probably go insane, so what, anyone who commits a mass attack like this is insane to begin with.

However that doesn't address the 'attention seeking' and desire to make a statement. I strongly suggest an extension of the 'right to be forgotten' push to a mandatory  erasure from history. Remove them from every place possible to reach. Right down to their birth certificate if possible. No media mentions past conviction. No quotes. No rants on any medium. Nothing.

Remove their ability to promote their 'cause' and remove them from history.

FKT

I agree that laws can only go so far, but those in NZ at the moment could do with a tweak.

As for the rest, agreed. There is much about the Chinese system that I disagree with. However the warning shot to the back of the head is something we need to consider. Consigning them to a small footnote in the history of the world is also a good idea. Perhaps anyone doing a search for their name should be lead to the last 5 seconds before the shot is administered. Unfortunately this could also be used against those that governments disagree with, so not sure what the answer is.

I do know that an outpouring of grief and candle vigils (seems to have taken over from T&P's) are not the answer. People try to pretend they are shocked and demand something is done. Think of the children they cry. Then they just drift off and live goes on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

I'm not so much thinking of punishment, something painless. I'm thinking more of erasing their genes from humankind as well as their persons.

The only sort of weapon I've considered building in decades is a pumpkin-chucker trebuchet. I got interested in the physics and think I have a way of making one break all the records. But it wouldn't hurt anyone except the few people who would be deprived of the pie that would have been made out of the pumpkin......

-DSK

Are you thinking we could have competitions on how far you can throw a gunman? I'd be in for that, made a baby trebuchet as a young kid, so have some experience already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Gissie said:

I do know that an outpouring of grief and candle vigils (seems to have taken over from T&P's) are not the answer. People try to pretend they are shocked and demand something is done. Think of the children they cry. Then they just drift off and live goes on.

Whilst I understand what you're saying (especially when it comes from certain disingenuous fucks in government); but don't diss the "outpouring of grief and candle vigils". People have lost friends, family, work mates, neighbours, and loved ones. Most of them need an outlet for that shock and grief. Coming together as a community to share their loss, to comfort those they know in pain, and so on is a Good Thing™ . Communities should come together to help each other through tragedies like this.

The politicians that simply use them as a means of deflecting from actual action on the issue can join Jeff in fucking themselves with broken glass. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Are you thinking we could have competitions on how far you can throw a gunman? I'd be in for that, made a baby trebuchet as a young kid, so have some experience already.

Nah, I'm not into cruelty (or unusuality) in punishments. I believe it is unAmerican. The trebuchet thing comes from a chance stop when Mrs Steam and I were driving by the Punkin' Chuckin' contest at Rehoboth Beach, years and years ago

However, if I were to try to think of something cruel to punish a criminal like the NZ shooter, it'd be something like cutting their hands off (surgically, with anesthesia and all), implanting some botflies in their face, then locking them in a room with a big mirror. Maybe give them a saline drip to keep them alive longer.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Nah, I'm not into cruelty (or unusuality) in punishments. I believe it is unAmerican. The trebuchet thing comes from a chance stop when Mrs Steam and I were driving by the Punkin' Chuckin' contest at Rehoboth Beach, years and years ago

However, if I were to try to think of something cruel to punish a criminal like the NZ shooter, it'd be something like cutting their hands off (surgically, with anesthesia and all), implanting some botflies in their face, then locking them in a room with a big mirror. Maybe give them a saline drip to keep them alive longer.

-DSK

Bugger, I was looking forward to chucking shooters, just feels like a good idea. You could even spice it up. Have accuracy throwing. Aim for a pond, if they land in it the get to live, well until the next throw. Could get shooters trained up to move like skydivers to help with the accuracy. Could even run a book and do this live TV. Would at least be a reality show worth watching. As long as they always fail to make it at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Whilst I understand what you're saying (especially when it comes from certain disingenuous fucks in government); but don't diss the "outpouring of grief and candle vigils". People have lost friends, family, work mates, neighbours, and loved ones. Most of them need an outlet for that shock and grief. Coming together as a community to share their loss, to comfort those they know in pain, and so on is a Good Thing™ . Communities should come together to help each other through tragedies like this.

The politicians that simply use them as a means of deflecting from actual action on the issue can join Jeff in fucking themselves with broken glass. 

I understand that communities need to find a way to deal with what has happened. Plus they will need help from the wider community. It is all the others that climb on the wagon to show how much they care, for a while. It becomes the event you need to be seen wailing about, even if you weren't anywhere near it or the community. 50 people get shot and the world cries and lights candles. 50 infants in NZ get beaten to death (the last one a couple of weeks ago) and no one gives a toss.

I guess it just bugs me that events like this, hopefully, rare shooting bring out all this outpouring of support and grief from extended humanity that is just for show. While we are happy to ignore real tragedies that occur on a regular basis.

As for the politicians, they are all in it for the camera and the soundbite. Nothing else. Should be consigned to the trebuchet competition along with the shooters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gissie said:

I understand that communities need to find a way to deal with what has happened. Plus they will need help from the wider community. It is all the others that climb on the wagon to show how much they care, for a while. It becomes the event you need to be seen wailing about, even if you weren't anywhere near it or the community. 50 people get shot and the world cries and lights candles. 50 infants in NZ get beaten to death (the last one a couple of weeks ago) and no one gives a toss.

I guess it just bugs me that events like this, hopefully, rare shooting bring out all this outpouring of support and grief from extended humanity that is just for show. While we are happy to ignore real tragedies that occur on a regular basis.

People give a toss, but there is a difference between someone murdering one person and a person murder fifty. To compare the two, I guarantee you that if someone beat to death "only" ten babies in a single incident - it would make international news like this one did. The outpouring of grief would be just as big, and there'd be even less of the political bullshit because beating a baby to death won't bring gun politics or religism into the mix.

What you are complaining about is human psychology. People find it easier to dismiss frequent, yet smaller costs/incidents than they can larger, rarer events. It's why lenders will try to hide the cost of a loan over the entire term in small print somewhere when legally forced to tell the borrower. It might piss you off, it might be unfair, but it isn't anything more than simple psychology based on the fact that we evolved from short-term thinking primates. Look at politics in general - long term thinking does not come naturally to most people.

 

1 minute ago, Gissie said:

As for the politicians, they are all in it for the camera and the soundbite. Nothing else. Should be consigned to the trebuchet competition along with the shooters.

I don't have that much cynicism in me. I really do believe there are humans occupying those roles and some of them are truly moved and heartbroken about the events. Most certainly not all of them, certainly, but you don't have to be heartless to be a politician though it helps. This forum shows there are both kinds of people in all kinds of jobs. Some people are despicable arseholes only interested in tragedy in as far as it lets them play gotcha games and trigger people. Others are genuinely shattered by it. Not all politicians are evil. Not all sailors are saints. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gissie said:

Consigning them to a small footnote in the history of the world is also a good idea. Perhaps anyone doing a search for their name should be lead to the last 5 seconds before the shot is administered.

Text:

This person committed an act of atrocity and was executed for it. May they be forgotten.

No further details and all their records, posts, videos, everything electronic and in newspaper archives expunged. Their bodies cremated and their ashes scattered to the winds (or pumped into a sewer).

We may not be able to completely stop such acts but we can make our disapproval plain.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

People give a toss, but there is a difference between someone murdering one person and a person murder fifty. To compare the two, I guarantee you that if someone beat to death "only" ten babies in a single incident - it would make international news like this one did. The outpouring of grief would be just as big, and there'd be even less of the political bullshit because beating a baby to death won't bring gun politics or religism into the mix.

What you are complaining about is human psychology. People find it easier to dismiss frequent, yet smaller costs/incidents than they can larger, rarer events. It's why lenders will try to hide the cost of a loan over the entire term in small print somewhere when legally forced to tell the borrower. It might piss you off, it might be unfair, but it isn't anything more than simple psychology based on the fact that we evolved from short-term thinking primates. Look at politics in general - long term thinking does not come naturally to most people.

 

I don't have that much cynicism in me. I really do believe there are humans occupying those roles and some of them are truly moved and heartbroken about the events. Most certainly not all of them, certainly, but you don't have to be heartless to be a politician though it helps. This forum shows there are both kinds of people in all kinds of jobs. Some people are despicable arseholes only interested in tragedy in as far as it lets them play gotcha games and trigger people. Others are genuinely shattered by it. Not all politicians are evil. Not all sailors are saints. 

You surely have to admit that more politicians should be strapped in and tossed than not. And it would make very popular reality TV. Although get a real audience we may need to have the politicians go on dates with the shooter and he gets to pick which one he competes with. Hopefully there will always be more politicians than shooters to chose from.

As for the human psych with the candles and vigil part, understand, it just pisses me off. On a personal basis I just find it rather self indulgent and pathetic. It becomes a competition to see how upset you can be about something hundreds of miles, and possible cultures, away. Maybe we would have been like it decades ago if social media were available, but I doubt it somehow. Pragmatism and deal with it more likely. Neither is necessarily more correct than the other, different behaviours for different times. I'm more from the past, so a cynical old fucker these days.

And get off my lawn...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Gissie said:

You surely have to admit that more politicians should be strapped in and tossed than not. And it would make very popular reality TV. Although get a real audience we may need to have the politicians go on dates with the shooter and he gets to pick which one he competes with. Hopefully there will always be more politicians than shooters to chose from.

I think that about most people in power. Generally those that seek it are the worst fuckers to give it to. Doesn't matter whether it be politicians in government, the rules lawyers in sport, or the head of the local P&C committee. It's not just that power corrupts, it's that the corrupt want power. No way around it though. We're a tribal species and there is WAY too many of us to deal efficiently without the power structures these people crave.

 

Quote

 As for the human psych with the candles and vigil part, understand, it just pisses me off. On a personal basis I just find it rather self indulgent and pathetic. It becomes a competition to see how upset you can be about something hundreds of miles, and possible cultures, away. Maybe we would have been like it decades ago if social media were available, but I doubt it somehow. Pragmatism and deal with it more likely. Neither is necessarily more correct than the other, different behaviours for different times. I'm more from the past, so a cynical old fucker these days.

To be frank, I don't think people have changed as much as the older generations like to think they have. I mean, look at climate change - is it the older or younger generation looking to find a pragmatic solution and deal with it? Is it the kids or the older folks screaming that the government will take their guns from their cold dead hands? Hell, what generations make up the bulk of Trump's support - older or younger generations? People today are the way people of yesteryear would be with the same tools and options at their disposal. Because people are people. We share the same base instincts, the same proportion of idealists, idiots, and corrupt power-mongers we did before. We just have different tools for them to explore and work with.

The difference between the generations is more about access to information and connection to like-minded folks than anything else. Which is also why I think the younger generation are not as different from us as they like to think they are. Remember when rock & roll was the devil? Intergenerational differences are just playing the same reruns with different themes.

 

Quote

 And get off my lawn...

Soon as you get out of my Internet feed. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we reprise The Lady or the Tiger, or in Trump's case, The Porn Star or the Tiger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, The Resistance to Trump's new order keeps doing good work.  7 active military members and 1 active shit-bag cop where just outed as being members of a white-supremacist group.  Cop is currently on ice awaiting to be fired.   Now, Jeff might ask, "What's racist about wanting to keep America mostly white?"  We are here to help him out. 

morley-flyer-700x906.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Good to see that Jeff has zeroed in on who the real victims are.

Jeff is actually a perfect example of the need for gun control.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Soon as you get out of my Internet feed. ;) 

Ahh, the new cynical growing old cry for the modern generation. I like it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

Funny (Not really) that one of the shooter's pet peeves was "Immigrants"..... When he was an Ozzy in EnZed......

Or more specifically, an "Invasion" of non European, non-Christian people into "European" areas.

Like NZ, which was full of Maori before the English showed up. And Oz...

He's clearly not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but most of 'em aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Text:

This person committed an act of atrocity and was executed for it. May they be forgotten.

No further details and all their records, posts, videos, everything electronic and in newspaper archives expunged. Their bodies cremated and their ashes scattered to the winds (or pumped into a sewer).

We may not be able to completely stop such acts but we can make our disapproval plain.

FKT

Would you also censor references to such a person?

Like, you know, that post?

It's sickening to me that people think censorship is an answer that can or should work. Information was hard to contain before the internet. Now it's impossible.

A plan like yours would make contumacious people like me archive EVERYTHING that others want censored and get busy spreading it around.

A more sickening proposal is Steam Flyer's idea of tainted blood. That shit was part of the reason for our revolution.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jbsf's whining Op does, as usual, miss the mark. But of course the reason it occurred to him is that there has been some prominent discussion about the ease of streaming video of this sort of thing.

 

I have a few thoughts:

1. Facebook, Google, Twitter et al. do not really give a shit what people post as long as they can sell heaps of ads. They do the bare minimum of moderation to try and keep the cops off their backs. I have no objection to onerous businesscrushing regulations being imposed upon them.

2. However, this does of course not actually fix the issue. I can rent a server for $10, install the necessary software and config, and be good to stream to my hearts content within seconds. It's not as easy as pressing a button on facebook, but there is nothing magical or inaccessible about streaming videos to all and sundry. 

3. Who decides what gets censored? There have been a bunch of movies we have discussed over the years which have featured people dying. While we have laughed about Youtube concealing boobs while videos of death flourish, the question of who draws that particular line is a very real one. Getting the government involved in this sort of thing seems a heartbeat away from also snuffing out videos of misbehaving cops, and what would we have to bitch about then?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Battlecheese said:

I have no objection to onerous businesscrushing regulations being imposed upon them.

2. However, this does of course not actually fix the issue. ...

3. Who decides what gets censored?

Looks like you have two good objections.

I helpfully bolded them for you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:

Looks like you have two good objections.

I helpfully bolded them for you.

No shit sherlock. Pity you aren't that good at reading in other discussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So have been listening to all the news in the wake of the NZ terror acts. A few things come to mind:

1.  The NZ PM went right to guns as the cause and what needed to change, Despite it being 20 yrs since the last event even similar despite relatively lax gun laws there. 

Why instead is she not calling for a crackdown on white supremacist’s ability to use social media to promulgate their message and allow people to self radicalize?  It seems that, far more than cracking down on tools would pay dividends. 

Ill get to the rest later. I have to go shoot my assault weapon in a rifle class. 

Discuss...

 

 

 

D1zPVLtXgAAVeh0.png

53913846_2197863466924154_837962541949779968_n.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

 

 

 

53913846_2197863466924154_837962541949779968_n.jpg

The truck likely required special training and a license to operate and in many locations insurance to register.  Without those things, it could not even be moved to a fuel or service location.    Why is a useful machine capable of killing so much more carefully regulated then a killing machine that has no other utility or intended function?   The ability to mount balls to your rifle doesn’t make it a truck (or the weilder more masculine),

B87DE3A3-4238-4F04-8280-50F346825669.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

 

 

D1zPVLtXgAAVeh0.png

53913846_2197863466924154_837962541949779968_n.jpg

Islamic terrorist kills people, MBL spends days and pages to tell everyone how Islam is to blame and how we should have no tolerance at all for their beliefs.

Right-wing anti-Islamic terrorist kills people, MBL avoids even condemning the attack, let alone telling people how his views are to blame and we should condemn them too.

Moron He Lyin, you are really proving what a dishonest, disingenuous fucktard you are hammering away on you obsession at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I'm not so much thinking of punishment, something painless. I'm thinking more of erasing their genes from humankind as well as their persons.

The only sort of weapon I've considered building in decades is a pumpkin-chucker trebuchet. I got interested in the physics and think I have a way of making one break all the records. But it wouldn't hurt anyone except the few people who would be deprived of the pie that would have been made out of the pumpkin......

-DSK

You believe in killing innocent people because innocent people were killed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, chinabald said:

You believe in killing innocent people because innocent people were killed? 

Funny thing, I wouldn't expect you to say anyone is truly innocent. But should all the rest of us suffer?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mohammed Bin Lyin said:

 

 

D1zPVLtXgAAVeh0.png

53913846_2197863466924154_837962541949779968_n.jpg

Po widdle snowflake 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, frenchie said:

How would one go about doing that, without trampling all over their Free Speech Rights & shit? 

Weren't you one of the elk saying it was important to respect those Free Speech Rights, after Berkeley & Charlottesville?

 

Well, see this is what I’m getting at. Why is his free speech to spew racist shit greater than the right of those worshippers to live their lives???  Why is no one interested in removing some of these rights to speech and press in the name of public safety. 

There was a really interesting segment on NPR or PBS where a panel was discussing the rise of white nationalist/ supremacy worldwide. One of the things they highlighted was that prior to the internet and social media, white supremacy was by nature isolated and contained to the fringe. But giving voice to this shit has normalized it and brought it out of the shadows to where people are radicalized on their own without having to join a group. Why would we not want to restrict this?  Doesn’t anyone think there is far more efficacy in limiting speech than than in limiting tools?  Especially in a country such as NZ where gun crime has historically been very low. This was a one off event by a shitbag who is not even a kiwi. Not sure how a pusstralian even got guns in NZ. 

So why NOT limit speech in this case??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

 Not sure how a pusstralian even got guns in NZ. 

 

So you know so little about the gun laws in Kiwi that you have no idea how an Aussie got to buy not just one, but a lot of them. Yet you feel empowered enough to support these l=very laws and try and send the discussion off into left field. All so you can own what you want in your country. Nice attitude for an asshole I suppose.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Well, see this is what I’m getting at. Why is his free speech to spew racist shit greater than the right of those worshippers to live their lives???  Why is no one interested in removing some of these rights to speech and press in the name of public safety. 

There was a really interesting segment on NPR or PBS where a panel was discussing the rise of white nationalist/ supremacy worldwide. One of the things they highlighted was that prior to the internet and social media, white supremacy was by nature isolated and contained to the fringe. But giving voice to this shit has normalized it and brought it out of the shadows to where people are radicalized on their own without having to join a group. Why would we not want to restrict this?  Doesn’t anyone think there is far more efficacy in limiting speech than than in limiting tools?  Especially in a country such as NZ where gun crime has historically been very low. This was a one off event by a shitbag who is not even a kiwi. Not sure how a pusstralian even got guns in NZ. 

So why NOT limit speech in this case??

All groups were limited in their reach before social media came along, not just the white supremacists. So if we limit their freedom to talk, who else do we limit. I, and probably a lot of others, disagree with the shit that the NRA spew on social media. Do we get to ban them. Half the US hates Democrats, do we shut those fuckers down. The other half hates Republicans, do we shut them down. Who gets to make the decision? You, me or some group. Shutting down talk is a slippery slope. Yet it is one you seem happy to espouse. Maybe because you would like to see all talk about whether we need to look at gun control also shut down. That your preference for owning guns should not be questioned. That free speech is great, as long as you agree with it. What out folks Jeff the Dictator is coming to a place near you. And him and his supporters will be armed just in case you have anything to say, so think carefully before you open your mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Well, see this is what I’m getting at. Why is his free speech to spew racist shit greater than the right of those worshippers to live their lives???  Why is no one interested in removing some of these rights to speech and press in the name of public safety. 

There was a really interesting segment on NPR or PBS where a panel was discussing the rise of white nationalist/ supremacy worldwide. One of the things they highlighted was that prior to the internet and social media, white supremacy was by nature isolated and contained to the fringe. But giving voice to this shit has normalized it and brought it out of the shadows to where people are radicalized on their own without having to join a group. Why would we not want to restrict this?  Doesn’t anyone think there is far more efficacy in limiting speech than than in limiting tools?  Especially in a country such as NZ where gun crime has historically been very low. This was a one off event by a shitbag who is not even a kiwi. Not sure how a pusstralian even got guns in NZ. 

So why NOT limit speech in this case??

The same way an English guy can get them in some states in the US and NZ. it’s not difficult. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Well, see this is what I’m getting at. Why is his free speech to spew racist shit greater than the right of those worshippers to live their lives???  Why is no one interested in removing some of these rights to speech and press in the name of public safety. 

Because free speech doesn't kill. No matter how many ways you spin it, no matter how many times you bring it up, no matter how many massacres you try to justify this position with - if the terrorist had been armed only with his free speech, none of the people would have died in his attack. Been insulted, perhaps. Disgusted, surely. But lying dead on the side of the road as he sped off to kill more people with something actually lethal? No.

The answer to your question hasn't changed since the last ten times you asked it and it's just as weak/invalid now as it was then. Repeating it doesn't make it better. Pretending it's at the same level as the "right" you want to protect doesn't make it better. And more importantly, regardless of how many people you think you can convince of your drivel, enforcing your planned free speech restrictions instead of enforcing weapon restrictions is nigh on impossible. Speech is not something you can walk into a person's garage and take from them like their semi-automatic. You don't need to go down to the local speech shop and buy your speech from a speech retailer. You don't go and buy regular refills of speech from them either. 

You're talking out your arse again because yet another massacre has used a weapon that you don't want to see restricted, you know that how New Zealand chooses to deal with the issue will be taken note of in the USA, and you're (once again) scared people might work out how to put some restrictions on your toys.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snuff film production sale and  distribution and even possibly viewing, have been illegal in most civilised countries since forever.

There's no need for this hand wringing about social media..what He who shall not be named posted was a snuff film...it;s illegal.

As for suitable punishment.

How come no one ever discusses (non lethal) brain altering surgery to render these  seriously violent offenders harmless.

Shades of Clockwork Orange and I shudder as I type the suggestion..though I'm not quite sure why?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

But giving voice to this shit has normalized it and brought it out of the shadows to where people are radicalized on their own without having to join a group. Why would we not want to restrict this?  

Wait. Are you saying Donald J. Trump is helping these whackos? WELCOME TO THE FUCKING CLUB!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

But giving voice to the LBT community has normalized it and brought it out of the shadows to where people are radicalized on their own without having to join a group. Why would we not want to restrict this?

So why NOT limit speech in this case??

Where do I start?:rolleyes:

There's a simple fix to restricting and minimalising the use of social media to promote hate..hate speech laws.

One simply has to add Religion .

As of November 2016, Section 18C is worded as follows:[1]

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Note: Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or
(b) is done in a public place; or
(c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

(3) In this section:

"public place " includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gissie said:
5 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Not sure how a pusstralian even got guns in NZ. 

 

So you know so little about the gun laws in Kiwi that you have no idea how an Aussie got to buy not just one, but a lot of them. Yet you feel empowered enough to support these l=very laws and try and send the discussion off into left field. All so you can own what you want in your country. Nice attitude for an asshole I suppose.

WTF are you talking about??  I don't care about the gun laws in sheepfucker land.  Honestly, I don't.  What I care about is that yet again, a politician can't see the forest for the trees.  Another idiot saying its all about the guns while they ignore the real problem of a growing worldwide radical white supremacists movement gaining strength ALL mostly based off the ability to hide behind free speech and an unregulated internets.  For instance, white supremacists have ALWAYS had access to a fuck-ton of guns in the US, particularly in the south.  Long before Al Gore invented the internets.  Yet they were largely isolated and ineffective back then.  But now, hate speech and acts of hate violence are on the rise.  Yet, gun laws are MUCH MUCH more strict in the US now compared to back then.  What's different?  Social media and the ability for these fringe groups to spread that message far and wide and allow people to self-radicalize without having to go to Klan or skinhead meetings where the FBI could mostly watch them.  

Why is this sort of behavior OK and on a massive upswing -yet the Pols propose nothing to clamp down on it?  Yet the only thing that they can come up with is to ban gunz that have rarely ever been a problem in NZ and punish all the law-abiding gunowners for the sins of a one-off shitbag.  

I guess dead children really ARE the price we pay for our freedoms (of speech and the press).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gissie said:

All groups were limited in their reach before social media came along, not just the white supremacists. So if we limit their freedom to talk, who else do we limit. I, and probably a lot of others, disagree with the shit that the NRA spew on social media. Do we get to ban them. Half the US hates Democrats, do we shut those fuckers down. The other half hates Republicans, do we shut them down. Who gets to make the decision? You, me or some group. Shutting down talk is a slippery slope. Yet it is one you seem happy to espouse. Maybe because you would like to see all talk about whether we need to look at gun control also shut down. That your preference for owning guns should not be questioned. That free speech is great, as long as you agree with it. What out folks Jeff the Dictator is coming to a place near you. And him and his supporters will be armed just in case you have anything to say, so think carefully before you open your mouth.

But but but...... why is one enumerated freedom OK to be put on the chopping block while others (presumably the ones you care about) are not?  

And yes, before you lose your shit, I do know that gunz are not an enumerated right in NZ.  But I'm talking in general and more specifically how this type of kneejerk reaction to a horrific event by the NZ PM is exactly the same kneejerk response we get here in the US.  Yet neither country seems to have any interest in tackling the root cause of the issue and that is the hate speech they spew.  

Simple direct question for you.......  Regardless if you like it or not, do you agree that severely limiting the ability for these people to access and distribute this sort of hate speech would reduce the number of these sorts of attacks?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mad said:

The same way an English guy can get them in some states in the US and NZ. it’s not difficult. 

I'm not aware of how an English guy can get assault weapons legally in the US.  I have a Brit friend in Las Vegas and he wanted to buy an AR-15 just recently, you know.... just because.....  but he was denied the sale because he was not a US citizen.  

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-foreigner-buy-a-gun-in-the-United-States

So is it different in NZ?  Can a pusstralian buy a legal AR-15 in NZ?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm not aware of how an English guy can get assault weapons legally in the US.  I have a Brit friend in Las Vegas and he wanted to buy an AR-15 just recently, you know.... just because.....  but he was denied the sale because he was not a US citizen.  

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-foreigner-buy-a-gun-in-the-United-States

So is it different in NZ?  Can a pusstralian buy a legal AR-15 in NZ?  

Not anymore cuckold. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Because free speech doesn't kill. No matter how many ways you spin it, no matter how many times you bring it up, no matter how many massacres you try to justify this position with - if the terrorist had been armed only with his free speech, none of the people would have died in his attack. Been insulted, perhaps. Disgusted, surely. But lying dead on the side of the road as he sped off to kill more people with something actually lethal? No.

The answer to your question hasn't changed since the last ten times you asked it and it's just as weak/invalid now as it was then. Repeating it doesn't make it better. Pretending it's at the same level as the "right" you want to protect doesn't make it better. And more importantly, regardless of how many people you think you can convince of your drivel, enforcing your planned free speech restrictions instead of enforcing weapon restrictions is nigh on impossible. Speech is not something you can walk into a person's garage and take from them like their semi-automatic. You don't need to go down to the local speech shop and buy your speech from a speech retailer. You don't go and buy regular refills of speech from them either. 

You're talking out your arse again because yet another massacre has used a weapon that you don't want to see restricted, you know that how New Zealand chooses to deal with the issue will be taken note of in the USA, and you're (once again) scared people might work out how to put some restrictions on your toys.

 

 

Actually speech DOES kill.  Speech can make people do bad things.  Its why you can't yell FIRE in a crowded movie theater - because the ensuing panic could (and has) definitely kill people.  

Conversely to your argument about speech not being able to be used to kill - neither does the presence of a weapon means that someone is going to die either.  Millions upon millions of gunowners don't kill people every day.  In fact I am currently at a firearms training academy where there are 500 people currently attending among various classes (handgun, shotgun, tactical rifle, long range rifle, machine gun, etc. where literally several thousands of rounds were fired today...... and not a single person was harmed.  Not a single one.  So the gun doesn't kill on its own anymore than speech does.  But what they both have in common is evil people using the tools (speech or firearms) to commit heinous acts.  

If I put hate speech up on social media that spurred someone to set fire to the AUS parliament and kill all your idiot politicians - is it the fire's fault they all died?  Or it that same self-radicalized person as a result of my speech gets an 18-wheeler and plows into and kills 150 people in downtown Sydney - are you going join me in calling for a ban on Lorry's?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

But but but...... why is one enumerated freedom OK to be put on the chopping block while others (presumably the ones you care about) are not?  

And yes, before you lose your shit, I do know that gunz are not an enumerated right in NZ.

Good, then you know your question is fucking retarded, even if one ignores the fact that free speech doesn't kill, no matter how much it's "wielder" wants it to. Guns on the other hand have a proven track record of doing exactly that. Quickly, efficiently, and before anyone who might, you know, be praying to their god can react. 

 

5 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

But I'm talking in general and more specifically how this type of kneejerk reaction to a horrific event by the NZ PM is exactly the same kneejerk response we get here in the US.  Yet neither country seems to have any interest in tackling the root cause of the issue and that is the hate speech they spew.  

Proving you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Stop trolling for outrage and getting the vapours because another country has realised guns are not a moral or legal right. Start fucking reading what New Zealand has done, is doing, and plans to do regarding hate speech. Because claiming they're doing nothing proves you aren't looking into this any further than is needed to be an arsehole here in PA.

 

5 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Simple direct question for you.......  Regardless if you like it or not, do you agree that severely limiting the ability for these people to access and distribute this sort of hate speech would reduce the number of these sorts of attacks?  

Sure. Can't be done though without completely shutting down the Internet, but in the fantasy land where you have complete control over all communication and the world agrees that protecting your precious sensibilities about guns is more important than all the other benefits that come with free speech, if you prevent everyone from talking online - you can cut down the attacks somewhat.

Pretend for a second that the status of natural language understanding AI is at a point where Facebook can accurately determine a social media post is supporting white supremacy, not catch those that mention the words white & supremacy in context of a different subject, and can learn the dog-whistle terms people use to disguise their hate speech from casual inspection. As soon as that happens ALL of the supremacists move to the dark web, where the most vile and already illegal hate speech is anyway. 

Speech is not a physical object. You cannot control it as easily as you can physical objects. It can be encrypted and disseminated without being able to detect it's nature, unlike a physical object. Like it or not, practicality matters. It is not as practical or effective to control speech in the way we can control guns. Kind of like how your government can control the spread of nuclear material far more easily than it can the knowledge of how to use it to make weapons. And does so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing to consider for all of you poo-pooing the idea that speech doesn't make people do stuff, its just speech..... aren't you also all the same ones who are severely criticizing trump the shitstain for his tacit endorsement of white nationalism and white supremacy with some of the overt and covert things he's said about them??  "Fine people on both sides" ring a bell?

And don't you also say that his speech is enabling further hate and could or actually HAS led to violence?  And you want him to knock it off lest he enables a further escalation of violence, right?  

So..... which is it?  Is speech harmless or can it lead to direct violence?  You can't have it both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

And more importantly, regardless of how many people you think you can convince of your drivel, enforcing your planned free speech restrictions instead of enforcing weapon restrictions is nigh on impossible.

And THIS ^^ right here, girls and boys - is exactly at the heart of the issue.  Because restricting speech is hard but taking guns away is easy.  So they only go for the easy stuff.  As long as its not a right they care about, the right as less equality in their eyes.

Sorry, that may be true in pusstralia and NZ, where there never was a "right" to own a gun in the first place.  But it IS an enumerated right here in the US.  And yes, that right is absolutely equal to all the other rights we enjoy.  EXACTLY EQUAL. No matter how many times you want to convince us of your drivel.   Because how one right is treated is how other rights will eventually be treated.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Actually speech DOES kill.  Speech can make people do bad things.  Its why you can't yell FIRE in a crowded movie theater - because the ensuing panic could (and has) definitely kill people. 

The speech is not killing. That is panic killing people and, like other actions likely to cause panic, the speech for that is made illegal. Like what we did here (& what NZ will be doing over there) in regards to the guns that kill people. And, like it or not, hate speech is already illegal in New Zealand. When it is found, it is prosecuted. 

You once again are proving how little you care about the excuse you're using to pontificate about gun control. 

 

3 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Conversely to your argument about speech not being able to be used to kill - neither does the presence of a weapon means that someone is going to die either.  Millions upon millions of gunowners don't kill people every day.  In fact I am currently at a firearms training academy where there are 500 people currently attending among various classes (handgun, shotgun, tactical rifle, long range rifle, machine gun, etc. where literally several thousands of rounds were fired today...... and not a single person was harmed.  Not a single one.  So the gun doesn't kill on its own anymore than speech does.  But what they both have in common is evil people using the tools (speech or firearms) to commit heinous acts.  

Never said otherwise. You keep pretending like that's an important and argument winning point, but it is completely irrelevant. Nuclear bombs don't go off without evil people using them either - we still restrict their proliferation because the damage they do when in the hands of evil people is too high for society to accept. Same principle involved here, but you deliberately ignore it because it undermines your desire to keep your toys.

 

3 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

If I put hate speech up on social media that spurred someone to set fire to the AUS parliament and kill all your idiot politicians - is it the fire's fault they all died?

Yes. The coroner will state quite explicitly that the persons died from asphyxiation from smoke inhalation, from being burned to death, or from complications stemming from the burns. The cause of death, and fault, will be put on the fire. The responsibility for setting that fire will be on the person that took the physical actions needed to set it; because your speech alone cannot make them do that. They must make a choice to do so and legal & moral responsibility comes from making that choice.

 

3 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

  Or it that same self-radicalized person as a result of my speech gets an 18-wheeler and plows into and kills 150 people in downtown Sydney - are you going join me in calling for a ban on Lorry's?  

I will happily support a ban on all lorries designed to kill people. You've tried that tack before and it failed then too.

 

It's patently clear that you are just using this massacre, like you did the last, as just another excuse to peddle out the same debunked bullshit again. You're just as bad as Tom with the exception he had just enough class not to troll people within a couple of hours after the attacks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

And yes, before you lose your shit, I do know that gunz are not an enumerated right in NZ.  But I'm talking in general and more specifically how this type of kneejerk reaction to a horrific event by the NZ PM is exactly the same kneejerk response we get here in the US.

2 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

 Sorry, that may be true in pusstralia and NZ, where there never was a "right" to own a gun in the first place.  But it IS an enumerated right here in the US.

Make up your mind moron. Either you're talking "in general", in which case you can shove the enumerated rights bullshit up your ass sideways; or you just want to use this massacre as yet another tragedy you can ride to jerk off about your Second Amendment, in which case grab the nearest beer bottle, smash it, and shove the remnants up there too. Fifty people were killed in a peaceful place of worship, the youngest a three year old child. None of their deaths have anything whatsoever to do with your gun fixation and your inability to see that shows, again, just what a low species of shit-eating slime you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Make up your mind moron. Either you're talking "in general", in which case you can shove the enumerated rights bullshit up your ass sideways; or you just want to use this massacre as yet another tragedy you can ride to jerk off about your Second Amendment, in which case grab the nearest beer bottle, smash it, and shove the remnants up there too. Fifty people were killed in a peaceful place of worship, the youngest a three year old child. None of their deaths have anything whatsoever to do with your gun fixation and your inability to see that shows, again, just what a low species of shit-eating slime you are.

Here bentsy - try some of this.

s-l640.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for proving my point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

I will happily support a ban on all lorries designed to kill people.

What does design have to do with it???  If its an effective people killing machine, what difference does its original design intent have to do with anything?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Thanks for proving my point. 

And thanks for proving mine....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Australia and New Zealand. They sound pretty civilized. Do they by chance have decent sailing?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

What does design have to do with it???  If its an effective people killing machine, what difference does its original design intent have to do with anything?

But it's not an effective people killing machine. It's large, unwieldy, cannot be hidden, requires more skill to use, etc. Just because something has been used for a task does not make it good at that task. A rock can be used to hammer in nails, and one could hammer in a lot of nails with it, but that doesn't make it a good hammer. Merely usable as one. 

 

21 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

And thanks for proving mine....

That you're bottom feeding scum willing to ride any tragedy to complain about how the world sees guns, fearing your country might start sharing that view? Nah, mate, no thanks necessary. That's all you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Olsonist said:

This Australia and New Zealand. They sound pretty civilized. Do they by chance have decent sailing?

Twilight sail starts at 6pm 

6E6C32B3-116E-4901-980A-6680F0093B2B.jpeg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Snuff film production sale and  distribution and even possibly viewing, have been illegal in most civilised countries since forever.

There's no need for this hand wringing about social media..what He who shall not be named posted was a snuff film...it;s illegal.

As for suitable punishment.

How come no one ever discusses (non lethal) brain altering surgery to render these  seriously violent offenders harmless.

Shades of Clockwork Orange and I shudder as I type the suggestion..though I'm not quite sure why?

Lobotomy has a long and effective history.

Cheap & quick too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

What does design have to do with it???  If its an effective people killing machine, what difference does its original design intent have to do with anything?

 

Fuck I'm sick of hearing that mindless shit.

A fucking ROCK is an effective killing machine - that is not it's sole purpose for existing though.

Be a man and stop the childish word games - Just say "Fuck You - I like my guns".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Lobotomy has a long and effective history.

Cheap & quick too.

I just think the brain surgery done by a shot to the back of the head would be easier. Low power so no exit wound, just a bit of a bounce. Save money on the cleaning bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

But but but...... why is one enumerated freedom OK to be put on the chopping block while others (presumably the ones you care about) are not?  

And yes, before you lose your shit, I do know that gunz are not an enumerated right in NZ.  But I'm talking in general and more specifically how this type of kneejerk reaction to a horrific event by the NZ PM is exactly the same kneejerk response we get here in the US.  Yet neither country seems to have any interest in tackling the root cause of the issue and that is the hate speech they spew.  

Simple direct question for you.......  Regardless if you like it or not, do you agree that severely limiting the ability for these people to access and distribute this sort of hate speech would reduce the number of these sorts of attacks?  

Hard to follow why you would ask about enumerated freedoms, then specify that you know they are not in NZ. But lets gloss over that as it was a rather feeble attempt at something, not clear what..

You go on about knee jerk reactions, but surely this is exactly what you have done. It is social medias fault, guns are just tools. Why the fuck should Kiwi take away the guns, leave them alone. What a gross simplification of the subject. There is no plan to confiscate the gunz (as you so childishly like to call them, as if you are some wannabe gangsta fuckwit). There is a plan to look at how easy it is to buy automatic weapons. Assault rifles, sniper rifles, armor piercing rounds, incendiary rounds. All that stuff that has no real use in the non-military world. There are plans to look at whether a private seller should record anything, even a name, when selling his guns. You know, the sort of stuff that pretty much any normal person not living in a war zone would likely find a good idea. But not you. No way are you having a beaner of that sort of shit. In fact, by your own admission you don't know or care to find out what our rules are. Just cry out 'you can't take our gunz' like a spoilt child losing his ball for being a prick with it.

As for your simple question, the simple answer is no. I would elaborate but it is pointless, your ears are closed. On the subject of your precious, you are like Golum, unable to think clearly or consider other views. It is just a case of 'you can't take my precious'. It is like they are some special life force that, with the loss of each one, you will diminish and fade away. The reality is they are just tools. Tools that can be used to do bad things with. Therefore some/many of us think they should be regulated in some way.

Maybe you should re-read the quote at the bottom of your posts. It may help you realise why people like myself are prepared to stand up at last. It certainly doesn't appear to apply to you on any gun subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Fuck I'm sick of hearing that mindless shit.

A fucking ROCK is an effective killing machine - that is not it's sole purpose for existing though.

Be a man and stop the childish word games - Just say "Fuck You - I like my guns".

BS  - I'll bet you $1M US (not worthless Canadian beavers) that I can kill more people in a shorter amount of time with an 18 wheeler than you can with a rock.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

BS  - I'll bet you $1M US (not worthless Canadian beavers) that I can kill more people in a shorter amount of time with an 18 wheeler than you can with a rock.  

The point would be moot if he whacked you with the rock first.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

The point would be moot if he whacked you with the rock first.

Have to be a bloody good whack to damage that thick skull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

BS  - I'll bet you $1M US (not worthless Canadian beavers) that I can kill more people in a shorter amount of time with an 18 wheeler than you can with a rock.  

Way to miss the point, moron. But hey, let's go down your path - we'll compare the lethality of the last "mass murder by lorry" with the lethality of the New Zealand attack and you shut the fuck up about the weapon that racked up the most dead bodies at the end of the assault. What do you say? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Have to be a bloody good whack to damage that thick skull.

Aim for his concealed carry. What did I win?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Gissie said:

Hard to follow why you would ask about enumerated freedoms, then specify that you know they are not in NZ. But lets gloss over that as it was a rather feeble attempt at something, not clear what..

You go on about knee jerk reactions, but surely this is exactly what you have done. It is social medias fault, guns are just tools. Why the fuck should Kiwi take away the guns, leave them alone. What a gross simplification of the subject. There is no plan to confiscate the gunz (as you so childishly like to call them, as if you are some wannabe gangsta fuckwit). There is a plan to look at how easy it is to buy automatic weapons. Assault rifles, sniper rifles, armor piercing rounds, incendiary rounds. All that stuff that has no real use in the non-military world. There are plans to look at whether a private seller should record anything, even a name, when selling his guns. You know, the sort of stuff that pretty much any normal person not living in a war zone would likely find a good idea. But not you. No way are you having a beaner of that sort of shit. In fact, by your own admission you don't know or care to find out what our rules are. Just cry out 'you can't take our gunz' like a spoilt child losing his ball for being a prick with it.

 

You obviously have not read many of my gun topic posts, or are just unwilling to actually read the ones that create any drama.  I have long called for universal background checks and have said repeatedly that I favor more rules on gun regulations such as registration, training, etc.  But it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of who you think I am.  

As I said..... I don't know NZ gun law specifics nor do I really care.  But I am curious...... did the Christchurch shooter user incendiary rounds, sniper rifles, or armor piercing rounds?  Can you easily, legally buy that stuff in NZ anyway?  If so, have any of that stuff been an issue in crime in the recent past?  Do you have a dearth of sniper rifle shootings in NZ?  If the answer is no to all of those, as I suspect it is - why would any of that even be the first things you consider in the wake of an event like this?  Its like you're groping around in the dark for ANYTHING, anything at all, to blame rather than the behavior of a flawed human and your own gov'ts failure to see it and stop it.  

Quote

As for your simple question, the simple answer is no. I would elaborate but it is pointless, your ears are closed. 

No they are honestly not closed and I'm curious on your take on that question.  I suspect it has less to do with me, than with your inability to answer because you would have to admit that restricting a freedom you like is much harder for you than restricting one that you could give two shits about.  Because to restrict a freedom like speech, you would be forced to confront that that freedom does indeed enable dead children and will continue to enable the killing of children.  So going after inanimate objects are much easier and less painful for you.

And I have no issue with regulating tools as long as there is a good reason behind it and what is being "regulated" will actually make a difference.  I don't believe the majority of the proposed regulations will do fuck all to stop a white nationalist movement that is becoming increasingly violent.  All that will do for NZ, IMHO, is bring some immediate catharsis so the gov't can be seen as "doing something".  But it won't change anything substantive.  Your own law-abiding citizens who were no threat or harm to anyone will suffer for the fuckwittery of a single pusstralian interloper.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites