Mass shootings at New Zealand mosques...

[Mountain Man]

"No other developed nation comes close to the rate of US gun violence".

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...s-gun-violence

Since 20 May 1992 NZ has not had a multiple murder of more than 7 persons at a time and there have been just 4 such episodes from then until the recent massacre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...in_New_Zealand

OTOH data from the ‘US Gun Violence Archive’ reveals there is a mass shooting – defined as four or more people shot in one incident, not including the shooter – nine out of every 10 days on average.

First of all, you're using two different definitions of "mass killings" (7 or more versus 4 or more); secondly, mass killings in New Zealand were rare even before they passed restrictive gun laws; finally, violent crime rates in New Zealand have steadily increased since World War 2.

https://teara.govt.nz/en/violent-crime/page-1

[Terraceth]

except when it comes to guns, it turns out that if more noncriminals have them, then the criminals are less likely to try to use them knowing they would end up being shot if they tried. It takes the police 20 to 30 minutes to show up at these sorts of mass killings. If the people there had guns, the killer would have been stopped before he killed 49 people. The laws to ban guns only take them away from people who would NOT use them criminally.

Missing the point. Your claim was that the gun control did "nothing" and your proof was apparently this massacre, but that doesn't make sense. If any number of such massacres, even just one, was successfully prevented via the gun control laws, then they did in fact do something, even if it does not reduce the number to 0. So your argument is "it didn't completely solve the problem, so it didn't work." Laws rarely do completely solve problems, but if it partially does, it can be considered a success. If a law--or the repeal of a law--cuts the poverty rate in half, it's silly to claim it did "nothing" just because it didn't eliminate poverty.

Now, if things like this were happening in New Zealand at a similar frequency to the United States, then you would have a point. But you did not demonstrate that at all, you just claimed that a policy didn't completely stop something so it was somehow a failure. So your argument, at least as presented, was a non sequitur.

[Cow Poke]

[kiwimac]

First of all, you're using two different definitions of "mass killings" (7 or more versus 4 or more); secondly, mass killings in New Zealand were rare even before they passed restrictive gun laws; finally, violent crime rates in New Zealand have steadily increased since World War 2.

https://teara.govt.nz/en/violent-crime/page-1

Actually what has happened is that the reporting of violent crime has risen along with increases in population (so more cases to report.)

[Mountain Man]

Actually what has happened is that the reporting of violent crime has risen along with increases in population (so more cases to report.)

This is what the source says (which as far as I can tell is an official New Zealand government website):

Rates of violent crime (based on both reports and convictions) have increased since the Second World War. These increases have occurred across all forms of violent crime – murder, manslaughter, assaults, robbery, sexual assault and domestic violence, as well as violence against children.

Violent crimes reported to the police increased from 640 per 100,000 people in 1985 to a peak of 1,562 in 1996. After that they decreased slightly, but soon began to rise again. In 2008 nearly 1,400 violent crimes were reported per 100,000 citizens. Recent increases in reports of violent crime are related to a rise in recorded family violence. This is probably due to lower tolerance of domestic violence, and to police training initiatives that increased police responsiveness to complaints about family violence. Reported violent crime peaked in 2009 at 66,464 offences, then fell to 60,117 in 2013 before rising again in 2014 to almost 62,000. The police's new recording method, introduced in 2014, shows that per capita violent crime increased by 17% between 2014 and 2017.

The point is that restricting guns doesn't seem to have had an appreciable impact on New Zealand crime. You see similar results in Australia where rates of violent crime have continued to increase despite restrictive gun laws.

[shunyadragon]

It's going to be really hard to do the analysis. You'd have to agree on a definition of "mass shooting," and probably consider both "population" and "population density." Might even need to break it down regionally, rather than consider U.S. as a whole; do the shootings tend to concentrate in certain areas? What do those areas have in common? Political party in charge? Race? Population density? Economics? Religious affiliation? Gun laws?

That has already obviously been determined.

[rogue06]

This is what the source says (which as far as I can tell is an official New Zealand government website):

Rates of violent crime (based on both reports and convictions) have increased since the Second World War. These increases have occurred across all forms of violent crime – murder, manslaughter, assaults, robbery, sexual assault and domestic violence, as well as violence against children.

Violent crimes reported to the police increased from 640 per 100,000 people in 1985 to a peak of 1,562 in 1996. After that they decreased slightly, but soon began to rise again. In 2008 nearly 1,400 violent crimes were reported per 100,000 citizens. Recent increases in reports of violent crime are related to a rise in recorded family violence. This is probably due to lower tolerance of domestic violence, and to police training initiatives that increased police responsiveness to complaints about family violence. Reported violent crime peaked in 2009 at 66,464 offences, then fell to 60,117 in 2013 before rising again in 2014 to almost 62,000. The police's new recording method, introduced in 2014, shows that per capita violent crime increased by 17% between 2014 and 2017.

The point is that restricting guns doesn't seem to have had an appreciable impact on New Zealand crime. You see similar results in Australia where rates of violent crime have continued to increase despite restrictive gun laws.

According to starlight:

Reduction of gun suicides was actually a major motivation behind a tightening of gun control laws here in NZ about a decade ago.

But it doesn't look like it had much of an effect in the overall suicide rate.

00000000000000ab000-00e.jpg

I also noticed that New Zealand has the highest suicide rate among adolescents of any developed country. And the suicide rate among 15 to 24 year olds is basically twice the rate we have here in the U.S.

[tabibito]

This turned up in my face-book feed

Imam Tawhidi
7 hrs ·

Okay that was truly disgusting, Sunrise (I think that's a morning TV show - could be wrong). What you did to Pauline Hanson this morning was pure cowardice and it only reveals your level of integrity. As a Muslim, I oppose your politicisation of the NZ Mosque Massacre and you trying to pin it on Pauline. Pauline has been silent the entire time, and hasn’t made any foolish comments like others in Parliament. Therefore, trying to paint her as an evil woman was nothing short of disgusting. One Nation is a legally registered political party that has tens of thousands of members and hundreds of thousands of voters. Claiming that their policy is like the terrorist’s manifesto insults all those good and hard working Australians (who are condemning the terrorist attack). Pauline has the right to disagree with us Muslims and our religion. She also has the right to propose laws that limit migration. That is normal in the world of politics. It happens everywhere. One Nation does not endorse terrorism. Many Muslims vote for One Nation too.

David quoted from Pauline’s maiden speech, yet he failed to mention that the terrorist was plotting and planning for such an attack for several years now. Most likely even before Pauline ran for elections. Pauline is against extremist Muslims only, and not all of us. She has the right to reject our religion, the same way Muslims reject other religions, and so on. There is no violence or call to violence in any of this. David also made accusations that Pauline makes bold statements that “every Muslim is a threat because they don’t look like us,”. This is completely false. Pauline has a Muslim Candidate in One Nation* and also meets with Muslims, such as myself.

Then the two teamed up on her, with questions about Fraser Anning. Pauline has condemned Anning previously, but you had to throw that in there to score points. That was unfair, dishonest, misleading and un-Australian.

* One Nation is a kind of out there minority right wing party. (Or as right wing as any Australian political party gets and still draws a measurable vote.)

Seems that American press isn't alone in trying to politicise this atrocity.


And there is one person's response to all the flying bull-dust:

The irony is making my teeth ache, Pauline Hanson being defended by a Muslim cleric!

Reports that the person who took the gunman on was armed are somewhat misleading. He did use a gun - the gunman's emptied of ammunition discard - and threw it (through the gunman's car windscreen) at the gunman, who was in the process of getting a fresh weapon. Before that, the defender was armed with a credit card reader.

[Mountain Man]

According to starlight:
But it doesn't look like it had much of an effect in the overall suicide rate.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]35726[/ATTACH]

I also noticed that New Zealand has the highest suicide rate among adolescents of any developed country. And the suicide rate among 15 to 24 year olds is basically twice the rate we have here in the U.S.

Then there's England where gun crime is down, but knife crime has reached "epidemic" levels to the point that one MP quite earnestly - and ridiculously - suggested, "Every knife sold in the UK should have a gps tracker fitted in the handle. It’s time we had a national database like we do with guns. If you’re carrying it around you had better have a bloody good explanation, obvious exemptions for fishing etc."

https://inews.co.uk/news/tory-mp-pro...old-in-the-uk/

[Sparko]

Missing the point. Your claim was that the gun control did "nothing" and your proof was apparently this massacre, but that doesn't make sense. If any number of such massacres, even just one, was successfully prevented via the gun control laws, then they did in fact do something, even if it does not reduce the number to 0. So your argument is "it didn't completely solve the problem, so it didn't work." Laws rarely do completely solve problems, but if it partially does, it can be considered a success. If a law--or the repeal of a law--cuts the poverty rate in half, it's silly to claim it did "nothing" just because it didn't eliminate poverty.

Now, if things like this were happening in New Zealand at a similar frequency to the United States, then you would have a point. But you did not demonstrate that at all, you just claimed that a policy didn't completely stop something so it was somehow a failure. So your argument, at least as presented, was a non sequitur.

Do you understand the concept of hyperbole?

[Tassman]

First of all, you're using two different definitions of "mass killings" (7 or more versus 4 or more); secondly, mass killings in New Zealand were rare even before they passed restrictive gun laws; finally, violent crime rates in New Zealand have steadily increased since World War 2.

The thing is that, no matter how you look at it, no other developed nation comes remotely close to the rate of US gun violence. The US has a shooting of four or more people nine out of every 10 days on average. Virtually no other Western country, including NZ, can approach these figures.

Furthermore, officials in New Zealand are acting as if restrictive new gun laws are simply a common-sense reaction to a deadly mass shooting. Imagine that.

[seer]

Furthermore, officials in New Zealand are acting as if restrictive new gun laws are simply a common-sense reaction to a deadly mass shooting. Imagine that.

Yes and all the sheep will give up their firearms...

[Cow Poke]

The thing is that, no matter how you look at it, no other developed nation comes remotely close to the rate of US gun violence.

No other developed nation is quite like the US.

The US has a shooting of four or more people nine out of every 10 days on average.

I'm sure you have a cite for that.

[Sparko]

No other developed nation is quite like the US.



I'm sure you have a cite for that.

Even if true that would be less than .000004% of the population (1,314/330M).

And is that just shooting or killing?

[Cow Poke]

Even if true that would be less than .000004% of the population (1,314/350M).

And is that just shooting or killing?

I'm sure it's whatever statistical wording that would make it look the absolute worstestestest --- That's one of the few things at which Tassy absolutely excels.