New Zealand fact of the day

Number of murders in New Zealand year: 35

Number of murders in New Zealand today/yesterday: > 35



As if these white supremacist race war assholes weren't bad enough, they have to attack one of the most peaceful places on (Middle) Earth.

So in not too long of a time, we've had a cretin shoot up a Christian church in Charleston, a Jewish synagogue in Pittsburgh, and now an Islamic mosque in NZ.

These white devils are subhuman pigmen. Literally worthless, and unworthy of love.

But there are fine people on both sides. That's what dear leader says.

It didn’t take you long, did it? 49 peaceful law abiding people are dead and you are making it domestic? Trivializing the dead and wounded to feed your derangement. For shame.

Aside from being an idiot, he's also naturally confused, because he's been told by Dems for years that things like this only happen in the USA.

Liberals are so open minded that their brains fell out, am I right?

This is being reported about the mass murderer- 'He also praised Trump himself “as a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose.” But he disavows Trump as “a policy maker and leader.”


Round up the usual suspects.

And who would they be? These sort of mass murderers are proud of their mass murders, and it is generally easy to round them up - as Viking notes, they generally turn out to be cowards unwilling to go down fighting to the end in heroic struggle for the Fatherl ... oops, that particular figure did go down fighting to the end, slaughtering as many people as possible before committing suicide.

Every heterosexual, white male.

Well, that is clearly moronic, as it is heterosexual white males which play such a major role in stopping these mass murderers from killing more innocent victims.

You know, those heterosexual white males that know who is doing the killing, and who are willing to put their lives on the line to stop such killers from continuing their actions.

But then, Capt. Renault would be expected to actually know that. considering his own attitude to white supremacists.

Like it or not, Trump appears in the guy's manifesto as a symbol of white identity. This whole thing is nuts.

Particularly as Tarrant seems to have been suffering from Trump Derangment Syndrome too - '“Were/are you a supporter of Donald Trump?” the author of the manifesto wrote.

The reply: “As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure. As a policymaker and leader? Dear god no.”'

That's NOT what he said.

He said there were fine people on both sides of the debate over whether to remove Confederate statues.

Well, one side was chanting 'Blood and soil' - in the original German 'Blut und Boden' (and in case you are not familiar with what it means - and 'Jews will not replace us.' What that has to do with Robert E. Lee completely escapes this native Virginian.

Of course, the transcript is available online for anyone wanting to read Trump's words to the questions he was asked -

It certainly seems that our President does not support Nazis from what he said in that press conference. Though it is bizarre to reflect on the fact that it has never been necessary to write that about any American president until this administration.

“Though it is bizarre to reflect on the fact that it has never been necessary to write that about any American president until this administration.”

Perhaps because half the media output at MSNBC and CNN is devoted to entertaining the possibility that Trump is a Nazi?

Everyone opposed to the left* is called a nazi, but Trump's detractors do seem to be an unusually shitty group of people.

*Part of the left's projection of course. Or are they distancing themselves for an unusually bad socialist?

Well, strangely enough, one can say the same about the occasional Trump supporter. Like this guy, who also seems to confuse Trump with a Nazi supporter, which is unlikely to be a case of projection in his case, or that of the other people enthusiastically agreeing with him -

'Perhaps because half the media output at MSNBC and CNN'

Since I pay as much attention to MSNBC and CNN as I do to Fox, I will take your word for it.

Another media source I completely avoid includes the NYT, and I pay no attention to twitter, and do not have any account involving any other social media.

Which makes it fascinating when people seem to think my information comes from such exceedingly poor sources. (Yes, the Washington Post is the local the paper I grew up with, so it has a certain value, even if my favorite bump sticker for years in the earlyish 80s was the one saying 'Don't Believe The Post,' which is always good advice, regardless of who owns it.)

Yes thank you, these jerks are gigantic racists. Obviously.

"they have to attack one of the most peaceful places on (Middle) Earth."

Is this really a surprise? One of the major purposes of terrorism is to move the battlefield to the peaceful home front in part to show the fragility of human existence, Al-Qaeda pioneered this strategy back in the late 80s/early 90s, Bush responded by declaring the entire world a battlefield for the War on Terror. The illegalists and anarchists of the early 20th century had the same philosophy in regards to fighting the capitalist system through random bombings and shootings.

Even though these murderers claim they are just retaliating for the hate crimes committed by Muslims this is disgusting.

But what if they are mentally ill? Do we suddenly switch back to fetishizing them? Or do hate on odd days, fetishize on even days?

Fetishizing whom? What are you talking about?

Don't play dumb. Maybe you aren't pretending ...

Anyway, the mentally I'll are so intersectional.

Get it?

You've slipped into trolling msgkings, for shame.

I'm a little pissed off. Sorry to see how little the usual crowd here is. When you got nothing, call the other guy a troll. Surrender accepted.

@msgkings - are you trolling, again? I'm surprised you led off with an pro-Muslim, anti-gun post, since usually you come across as a hard-edge, fundamentalist, troll. But maybe this is your strategy to get more views and replies? Get lost you pathetic fake. Trying to capitalize your trolling hobby on the misery of others.

LOL your stuff doesn't work on me. Stick to bamboozling Filipina hookers.

That was a pretty mean thing to say. You are being a flaming asshole today.

I responded to one of the self-proclaimed 'king of the trolls' attacks. Ray says more trollish and mean things in a day than I have in months.
He's lucky to have you to defend him.

I'm pretty riled up on this one. Too many asshole racist white guys pick up guns and murder the 'other' for no god damn reason and most of the regulars here try to shrug and either whatabout the issue or change the subject. So yeah, I'm a little more feisty than usual. Ray can handle it.

Would a "harumph" or two help?

Couldn't hurt!

If a bunch of Muslims shot up a church you'd be proclaiming Islam is a religion of peace.

What a transparent hypocrite you are!

I can play this game too!

You run a pedophile ring out of the basement of your pizza parlor.

See, we can type anything we want about each other. Doesn't make it true but it's good for a laugh.

Let's not forget the Bernie bro that shot up some Republican senators.

Looks like the only difference between right and left shooters is that the left's marksmanship is bad.

Forgot the link!

The MAGA van man also had a similarly bad effort. Let's be thankful the violent fringes are incompetent at what they do.

This guy was a wacko for sure, but the 'bombs' were never built to go off.

Yes, that is what the word "incompetent" means. Razor sharp insights today on MR.

Better look up the big words you try to use. Those bombs were never intended to detonate. That means 'go boom' if that helps you.

You must be so proud!

(Hey Rat, feel me now?)

It's clear you are very happy and excited about this mass murder by a sick madman - it reinforces all your stereotypes and gives you an opportunity to troll your political and cultural enemies.

Shame on you!

And quit fondling your rat, or mouse, or whatever you call that idle little thing.

Oh boy, that's what you're coming with? Maybe take a few plays off, Champ.

But I am absolutely correct, aren't I? You don't care about the victims and their families at all. This is your big chance to round up the opposition and put them in the same category as the murderous madman.

Never let a crisis go to waste, right?


Of course you're not correct. Any more than it would be correct for me to say that you are a white supremacist who is secretly happy that a brave race patriot did what needed to be done. Look at the libs getting all riled up, it's glorious!

As I said above, you and I can keep typing nonsense about each other all night long. Or, you could dial back your hissy fit and stop whatabouting this. There is a trope, a crazy evil white man writes a manifesto and goes and shoots up a place of worship or some other peaceful venue to kill the 'other'. Church, mosque, synagogue, youth camp, whatever. This does not implicate all white people, or Trump voters, or conservatives. But it is a trope, it's a thing. Let's agree on that, and then we can maybe try to prevent whatever it is in the ether that makes these guys do it.

Probably won't change much but we won't be wasting each other's time typing nonsense.

I would agree with everything you just wrote if you hadn't already used this murder to trash white conservatives.

You did it. Fess up and apologize!

It takes a man to admit wrongdoing.

Man up!

Brother, I am untrollable and unrile-able. I did nothing of the sort.

Grow up!

White conservatives need to look at what they did to facilitate this horrific act. Especially those who support Trump, who appeared in the manifesto.

White Conservatives did nothing to encourage this murdering madman to kill those people.

Neither did Trump supporters.

You could make the case that 8chan encouraged this guy. He absorbed all the racist memes there and it warped his soul.

I don't even know what 8chan is, though I can guess based an your comment.
Do you think a conservative mom living in Nebraska influences or evenknows what some fringe crackpots in 8chan are saying? Those whackos are outliers and in no way represent the views of people who are alarmed by the forced mixing of incompatible cultures perpetrated by elites that protect themselves from the consequences of these suicidal policies by living in NIMBY sparthied neighborhoods.

I'll bet we would be hearing a different story if some Islamist maniac shot up an elite cul de sac in some Maryland suburb.

One can only hope.

Trump needs to call evil by its name instead of pretending it doesn't exist. This is White Nationalist Terrorism.

1. He was asked a question before all information was available. Rushing to judgment has embarrassed a lot of people lately.

2. The question was whether white nationalism was on the rise. That is an empirical issue. Trump didn't have those facts available to him at that moment. Neither did the reporter who was merely asserting it was. Neither do you.

3. Even if WN is "on the rise," it can still be relatively small compared to other threats. While no murder is desirable, resources have to be prioritized. If you were mayor or police chief of Chicago, would you prioritize the security of mosques and synagogues against attacks that rarely take place, or attack the gang shootings that take place daily?

"Rushing to judgment has embarrassed a lot of people lately.'
This has never ever ever stopped Trump. Never.

This is exactly what Ghandi and others have talked about when speaking about a 'cycle of violence'.

What this man did is utterly abhorrent. But it does not exist in a vacuum of "white devil" (per msgkings) atrocities only. It is representative of a 'cycle of violence' where extremists (of all types) influence each other in an upward spiral of escalating violence and depravity.

Not necessarily Taylor...but here's a very good example of anti-white hatred using high-powered weapons. Once again, extremists come in all forms. No one has a monopoly and your desire for 'victory' continues the 'cycle of violence'.

A very good example? One? False equivalence again, it's common knowledge who actually likes to murder the 'other' just for being who they are. And I don't want 'victory' I just want these assholes to stop killing people.

Lots and lots of people kill others for being in the outgroup. Go ask the Croats, Armenians, Jews, Overseas Chinese, Igbo, Tutsis, Moros, Copts, Kurds, Yazidi, etc., if you want confirmation.

That doesnt take anything away from how evil these particular bastards are, but don't imagine this is uniquely a white supremacist thing.

Yes I know, ethnic divisions have led to wars. This is specifically about the insane and evil lone gunman who goes somewhere peaceful (usually a place of worship, in Breivik's case a youth summer hangout) and starts shooting. They usually leave a manifesto. We all know those dudes are white.

White people and Malays apparently:

Hmmm... rampage killings in general, you don't really have to work too hard to find a list of spree killers in the US in which 2 out of their top 11 are Black -

It is true that political spree killing in the sense of Breivik to "wake the people up" or "remove the traitorous leaders" or "drive away the enemy" doesn't really work very well from the perspective of a Black minority, so that specifically isn't going to happen very much.

Whites tend to leave Black communities anyway (so killing them to drive them away makes no sense, unlike Christians killing Moslems for'ex), Black people aren't well represented among leaders either (so it's hard for Black people to see them as traitors in need of execution), and the baseline level of "racial consciousness" and acting in accordance with shared interests among Blacks is very high anyway (and beyond that few Blacks would want to tip anything into open warfare anyway, as they probably understand they'd be trivially massacred under those conditions).

This is all in the US of course. Things are quite different in Black majority countries like ZAF, though in general not much like Breivik's attempted killing of the Norwegian left is plausible, since the leadership is pretty openly Black nationalist and uninterested in the well being of others (so hard to plausibly view them as "traitors").


Yes lucky for you there's one incident for your whataboutism. Stack that up against the dozens of white supremacist murderers (no Godwin).

"Yes lucky for you there's one incident for your whataboutism. "

Well 9/11 comes to mind. But hey that's only two more, amirite?

You are implying 9/11 was a racially motivated incident? Interesting.

And it's not even close to the same thing. When some asshole grabs a gun to go shoot up a place of worship, we all know what color that guy is and what he's so mad about.

There's not really two sides to this one. And I'm annoying radical centrist guy.

You are the one bringing racism to the picture. The New Zealander hated foreign Muslims. The 9/11 terrorists hated Christians/Jews interfering in the Middle East. They all had other axes to grind.

I think you are trying to link people you don't like with the tragedy in New Zealand.

I'm just a little triggered (yikes) by white people that like to shoot brown (and Jewish) ones like it's some moral duty. 9/11 has nothing to do with it. Racism sure as hell does.

"white people that like to shoot brown (and Jewish) ones like it's some moral duty. "

Not saying you're wrong to have this reaction, or that racism isn't bad and a real problem, but I think it's worth pointing out you only named five people. Racially motivated massacres remain thankfully rare, regardless of the ethnic group in question.

Agreed, thankfully rare. But those were just the five I could think of off the top of my triggered head.

Yeah, the Canadians and British just don't get as much attention -

'The Quebec City mosque shooting (French: Attentat de la grande mosquée de Québec) was a terrorist attack and mass shooting on the evening of January 29, 2017, at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City, a mosque in the Sainte-Foy neighbourhood of Quebec City, Canada. Six worshippers were killed and nineteen others injured when a lone gunman opened fire just before 8:00 pm, shortly after the end of evening prayers.[6] Fifty-three people were reported present at the time of the shooting.

The perpetrator, Alexandre Bissonnette, was charged with six counts of first-degree murder'

'On 19 June 2017, at approximately 00:15 BST (UTC+1), a hired van rammed several pedestrians at the junction of Whadcoat Street and Seven Sisters Road, 100 yards (90 m) from Finsbury Park Mosque in London.

A group of Muslims had earlier performed tarawih, night time prayers held in the month of Ramadan, when they came across a collapsed man at a bus stop. While rendering first aid they were rammed, and ten were injured. The collapsed man, Makram Ali, died at the scene, and post-mortem findings indicated that he died of multiple injuries.

Witnesses said the driver was beaten until the imam of the mosque, Mohammed Mahmoud, calmed down the crowd, prevented them from assaulting the perpetrator, and appealed for the driver to be handed over to police. Those beating him were held back by the imam and few other men, and the attacker was pinned down at the scene until police arrived. Witnesses quoted the driver as saying "I want to kill all Muslims", "this is for London Bridge", "I did my bit", "you deserve it" and "kill me".'

To be clear, I'm not saying the killer in New Zealand wasn't a racist, because he clearly was. But to try and link him to white/black racism in the US is irrational. There's no connection.

We were all told, correctly, that it wasn't fair to blame all Muslims for the 9/11 terrorists actions. But when EverExtruder says " it does not exist in a vacuum of "white devil" (per msgkings) atrocities only" you push back.

It seems like you are saying that white conservatives should be blamed for the actions of this person(s) in New Zealand.

Not all white conservatives, nor even most, nor even a large portion. But there's a few out there right now thinking 'go get 'em tiger!'. And that's a white thing.

Sure, just like there's a few Muslim terrorists out there. And I guess by your logic, that's a brown thing.

Interesting. Do you think that there is connection between skin pigmentation and racial violence?

Might be. Seems like these shoot 'em up lone gunmen are almost always white people with manifestos.

Yes I'm aware of racial and ethnic conflicts all over the world with non-white aggressors. I meant this specific trope.

Wow, the "msgkings" version of the sock puppet is sure out in force today.

Congrats on all the virtue-signalling, and you are clearly thrilled to finally have a real hate crime to celebrate. Sure, it's literally on the opposite side of Earth, and (whoops!) I guess you Dem Boys will have to take a break from saying how completely awesome all those Australian gun laws are.... but this your time to shine, big guy! Have at it!

LOL it's actually me. Guess we're ignoring Pittsburgh and Charleston now. And we think New Zealand is part of Australia.

Congrats on all the vice-signalling. And the idiocy. Keep up the, uh, work.

'how completely awesome all those Australian gun laws are'

What do Australian gun laws have to do with New Zealand?

"The gunman behind at least one of the mosque shootings left a 74-page manifesto that he posted on social media under the name Brenton Tarrant, identifying himself as a 28-year-old Australian and white nationalist who was out to avenge attacks in Europe perpetrated by Muslims. "

"The gunman said he was not a member of any organization, acted alone and chose New Zealand to show that even the most remote parts of the world were not free of "mass immigration." "

And this has to do with Australia's gun laws how?

Unless you wish to point out that it is at least possible that Australia's somewhat stricter gun laws make mass murder less practical in Australia than in New Zealand. In which case, no one will 'have to take a break from saying how completely awesome all those Australian gun laws are,' will they? At least when it comes to preventing Australian domestic mass murder, that is.

"And this has to do with Australia's gun laws how?"

It's not clear where the shooter actually got his guns.

Both sides? You're sick.

Riiiiight. ISIL, this guy, and everyone who has ever played an FPS.

I appreciate msgking's moral ferocity, and I can see a glimmer of Buddhist philosophy in EverExtruder's rejection of violence.

But the thing is, if you are going to reject violence, and violent rhetoric, you really gotta do it. Within your own house and without.

And certainly we should welcome all to that path.

I agree wholeheartedly and I will be the first to say - as I already said - I denounce this man's (and potentially any help he had) actions in the strongest possible terms.

Simultaneously, I can do so while also acknowledging the motivation - as he himself has revealed - to answer the question of "why"...which is just as critical to understanding how to defuse a 'cycle of violence'.

Pessimistically, humans have only 3 ways to defuse such cycles:
1) Victory
2) Both parties are punished - harshly - by a 3rd party which claims victory
3) A conclusion and internalization for the "why" is reached that may lead to reconciliation, but they can never live together (India and SA) and the cycle may re-ignite...forcing the 'victory' cycle all over again.

On a global scale I do not see #3 being possible. At all. Nor do I see (as you can allude to several commenters here) a widespread desire to understand the "why" and internalize the truth of it.

"I agree wholeheartedly and I will be the first to say - as I already said - I denounce this man's (and potentially any help he had) actions in the strongest possible terms."

Ditto this. ;)

So, Ireland (Republic and Northern Ireland) in the last 20 years - think any of your three ways actually applies?

And as for New Zealand specifically, what cycle of violence? That is, just like in Norway, where is the supposed starting point, apart from a white supremacist massacring people.

The Falls Road

Current descriptions of ongoing "troubles" and legacy

It is foolish to think that distrust still doesn't exist in Ireland.

2nd, the frontline is everywhere now and so is the 'cycle of violence'. The fact that this occurred at a mosque in NZ, by and Australian, against Pakistani and other mid-Asian muslims should be evidence that the where matters just as much as Muslims that shoot up a concert hall in Paris.

Your desire to continue painting this phenomenon as a solely "white" issue is truly not helping and certainly wrong and unproductive.

'It is foolish to think that distrust still doesn't exist in Ireland.'

Of course it does - so what? When was the last time someone sniped at a border post? That's right, there aren't any border posts anymore. Which prompted the first question you did not answer.

So, do you actually have any answers to either of these questions -

What of your three ways actually applies?

What is the supposed starting point of the violence in Norway or New Zealand, apart from someone armed with weaponry designed explicitly to cause massive carnage actually gunning down dozens of innocent people?

Neither Norway nor New Zealand were 'frontlines,' except in the depraved imaginations of mass murderers. Who apparently should not actually be called murderous white supremacists, even though they spent considerable time and effort - and killed lots of innocent people - so that nobody could possibly mistake their motivation.

What is the supposed starting point of the violence in Paris or Dallas, apart from someone armed with weaponry designed explicitly to cause massive carnage actually gunning down dozens of innocent people?

Anymore than the Bataclan mass shooting was committed by Muslim supremacists. Paris wasn't a frontline either, except in the depraved imaginations of mass murders, who apparently should not actually be called muslim supremacists, even though they spent considerable time and effort - and killed lots of innocent people - so that nobody could possibly mistake their motivation.

You are blinded by your 'rage' blinders...……….

'Paris wasn't a frontline either'

Well, apart from the French being involved in a number of Middle Eastern wars over the past couple of generations. This was happening the second time I visited Paris, by the way - 'The 1995 bombings in France were carried out by the Armed Islamic Group (GIA), who were broadening the Algerian Civil War to France. The bombs targeted public transport systems in Paris and Lyon Metropolis, including a school in Lyon. The attacks killed eight people - all of them in the first attack on 25 July - and injured about 157. The assassination of Abdelbaki Sahraoui, a co-founder of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) who opposed attacks in France, was a prelude of this extension of the Islamists' terrorist campaign to France.'

Norway and New Zealand, however, have not been involved in Middle Eastern wars.

Maybe you could try a bit harder in explaining why gunning down teenagers in Oslo is somehow connected to an event in Paris that occurred several years after that Oslo massacre.

Hopefully after explaining how the Irtish conflict was resolved according to one of your three ways.

But if it makes you feel better, mass murderers are scum regardless of the innocent people they kill, or why. What is fascinating is how when the mass murderers are white supremacists who leave behind copious documents and masses of corpses, there is an apparent need to somehow explain they aren't really as bad as other mass murderers, or at least to highlight the fact that since other mass murderers have killed somewhere else on the planet, it is understandable for a murdering white supremacist to feel they are somehow on the front lines as they kill innocent people.

Your final paragraph is delusional. I don't see anybody saying "aren't really as bad as other mass murderers" except you, as a troll.

The murder and the murderer are both despicable. You are using the murder to taint white conservatives, or white, anti-post-modernists as somehow in league with these dirtbags.

Really hitting below the belt.

"aren't really as bad as other mass murderers"

Well, perhaps the other way to put it is that mass murderers killing people in a place like Paris result from religious and political struggles outside of France that are simply part of the generations long involvement of the French government in the Middle East, and are not a justification for white supremacists to commit mass murder in Norway or New Zealand, as they are not frontlines of anything except white supremacist mass murder. Apparently explicitly so in the case of the New Zealand mass murderer, who decided to commit his mass murder there intentionally to emphasize his point.

'You are using the murder to taint white conservatives, or white, anti-post-modernists'

Excuse me, how can anyone - such as yourself - confuse white supremacist mass murderers with 'white conservatives, or white, anti-post-modernists.' I would have thought the distinction so obvious that it would be impossible to confuse the mass murdering white supremacists from the people you talk about. As a matter of fact, I thought that white conservatives, or white, anti-post-modernists would utterly and explicitly reject any association with mass murdering white supremacists to the extent that no would ever think of somehow considering them part of the same framework. Seems I was wrong, but this is the MR comment section.

I'm curious - do you actually know any white conservatives, or white, anti-post-modernists that you consider white supremacists? Personally, the distinction between white supremacists and white conservatives, or white, anti-post-modernists is exceedingly clear. After all, it is not as if white supremacy is somehow a hard to figure out ideology - it has nothing to do with conservatism or anti-post-modernists (nobody has ever accused of Jordan Peterson of being a white supremacist that I am aware of, as such a charge would be ludicrously absurd).

I do not know even one white nationalist - not even one.

I know many conservatives and an enormous number of lefties.

So, why would you ever think 'mass murdering white supremacist' would have anything to with 'white conservatives, or white, anti-post-modernists?'

Or think that anybody else would be so delusional? After all, you know the truth from your own experience - why not assume that other people are also capable of making a distinction between mass murdering white supremacists and everybody else (well, the distinction may not really matter when discussing mass murdering terrorists, admittedly).

Unbelievable. It is you who is conflating racist, deranged, murderous, white nationalists with white conservatives. You have been called on it by several astute posters. One of the first got it right, you are just trolling people so you can enjoy seeing them upset. You are one sad, sick puppy. The irony here is you are probably, if not certainly, just like the sick murderer that slaughtered those poor souls in the mosque. Here, read this article about you:

Whose "house" is this?

Trump is not in their house much less running it. The media (and you) are clearly implying that Trump has some duty to take responsibility.

Surely the best way to do that is mandatory integration of all kinds of immiscible peoples.

Thinking humans are "immiscible" is part of the problem.

Humans are pack animals who form hierarchical groups. Biology trumps ideology. That's what separate countries are for.

Humans are humans, and have evolved past the animal stage as shown by our exponentially more powerful brains. Well, most of us anyway. Your world view is silly and inaccurate, but if you get off on believing human beings are still chimps then have at it. The grownups have work to do.

It's not retrograde at all. Human ethnicities and new countries continue to form as they have done for all of human history. People even form these things called families, that they live with separately from other families.

You literally said humans are 'pack animals'. Also, families do not imply humans are 'immiscible'. We've both posted here a long time, you have your hammer and by gosh you're just gonna keep hammering, no matter how stupid you sound.

Humans are pack animals and apex predators; it is absurd and cruel to force them on each other. That's why we gave the Palestinians and the Israelis separate spaces.

Exactly what I was talking about. Keep it coming!

Technically speaking, humans are "pack hunters" like wolves. Not "pack animals" like beasts of burden. And yes pack hunters tend to be territorial. But to msgkings point, civilization is largely about humans suppressing their baser instincts.

Do you deny there are incompatible cultural, religious, and political practices between groups, like say fundamentalist Islamist Nations and liberal democracies? Saudi Arabia is just like the UK?

'Biology trumps ideology.'

Which undoubtedly explains why various groups of Americans keep having the sort of sectarian violence that marked Ireland from WWI to the Good Friday Agreement 8 decades later.

Cincinnati and Milwaukee are clearly just illusions of peace, as biology trumps ideology, while American history obviously shows that mixing various groups of Europeans just leads to unending violent conflict, right?

The sectarian violence has already started, with regular physical confrontations between Trump supporters and opponents.

Get ready, brothers!

Diversity + Proximity = War. This incident, abhorrent as it may be, should not surprise anyone, nor should whatever retaliation is sure to ensue. This is what NZ's policy makers signed up for.

And 'M' above says I'm the troll LOL

I said you were *a* troll here, slightly different.

Your equation fails in the case of California, New York, and Texas. Diversity + Proximity = Largest f***ing economies in the US. Major world cities like Singapore, London, Paris, and Berlin have been at this for centuries and they all do quite well.

Californians voted for prop 187, but relentless illegal immigration from Mexico combined with the high fertility of Mexican women in CA plus the flight of middle class whites out of the state completely changed the demographics and politics of the state, from Republican to a one party state. The middle class has been hollowed out and if whites aren't already a minority they soon will be. Not that I care about the racial aspect. I do care about the toxic leftism and post modernist bullsh*t that has destroyed the state.

Yet California has produced the country's first batch of trillion dollar companies and where the state's GDP surpassed the UK to become the world's 5th largest economy behind US, China, Japan, and Germany. Uber, Pinterest, and AirBnB's IPOs this year and next will mint another large batch of millionaires for the state. The Facts speak for themselves.

You are right. Australians have shown themselves to be civilisationally incompatible with New Zealanders. Time to deport these "immiscible" people.

It is what it is. New Zealand, with its heavy Maori influence, is probably not the place for white nationalists. It's probably not the place for Bengali Muslims or Han Chinese either.

Forty-nine dead Muslims is a racist atrocity. A million dead Muslims is the foreign policy consensus of all right-thinking people.

"million dead Muslims"

Mostly killed by other Muslims. That was a choice they, not Americans, made.

The US has killed thousands of Muslims up who were doing nothing more than living their own lives on the other side of the world.

"US has killed thousands of Muslims"

Well, that is progress, at least you are no longer blaming us for millions.

"doing nothing more"

Over 18 years of war, we might have killed a few hundred innocents by accident. The rest are armed opponents of the US and their direct supporters.

The Iraqi soldiers in 2003 were doing nothing more than fighting for their country as their patriotic duty. That entire war was a crime.

And 18 years of war? For WHAT, may I ask?

"That entire war was a crime."

Oh no, better call our lawyer!

It was a mere continuation of the 1991 war. Saddam started it, we belatedly finished it. Should have done so in 1991 but Colin Powell was a squish.

98 out of 100 drone strikes kill innocent civilians.

Hope you were standing up when you pulled that stat out of your bunghole.

Actually I pulled it out of your wife. Also I pulled out of your wife, cuck.

Since "thousands" covers hundreds of thousand, that's fair enough.

But those deaths were "worth it".

I thought it would be understood as poetic license based on the Stalin quote, but MR is afflicted with the tism.

"hundreds of thousand"

Americans have killed no where near a hundred thousand let alone multiples.

We are not responsible for Sunnis and Shias killing each other, they have been doing it for 1600 years.

Which is pretty incredible when you consider Islam was founded in 610 AD.

"Mostly killed by other Muslims. That was a choice they, not Americans, made."

But while the US blocked Jewish refuges in the 30s as their number increased while six million Jews were killed, Muslim refugees were not blocked for a couple of decades, until recently. But that was related to US oil consumers creating lots of rich Saudis opposed to the tolerance wealth requires, and thus funding terrorism on many fronts on an organized basis. This has been like the conservative Southern Democrats funding the KKK a century plus ago.

And the KKK used instagram of 1900 to spread their ideology by postcard social media. Banned by Congress in 1909 being mailed, but perhaps only promoting this 1900 instagram method to recruitt terrorists.

And the KKK was all about Christians killing Christians. Blacks in the US moved to Islam based on the argument Christianity was intolerant while Islam wasn't. That aspect of Islam changed when Iran became intolerant of US backed dictators, and Saudi Arabia became intolerant of democratic Muslims, and Iran became the enemy, thus bringing back the the wars between Muslims, just as various events brougght back wars between Christians. The most notable wars between Christiians fueling the flight of refugees to the Americas.

And I grew up with Christians killing Christians, eg "The Troubles", which had its roots in UK politics leading up to the American Revolution. The Crown was restricting immigration based on religious faith to prevent the wrong Christians displacing the right Christians.

Really nice "just so" story. You should write fiction. You just did.

If Americans hadn't spent the last 40 years supporting Sunni terorrism, those things wouldn't have happened.

We're also supporting this flavor:

Exactly. Americans should think hard about their decisions and their consequences.

Note to right thinking or real Nordics, this guy put "see you in Valhalla" or some such in his final message.

He wasn't the first white supremacist to claim Scandinavian mythology, and sadly, he won't be the last.

It’s rather ridiculous, this puffed up posturing about the Old Norse religion. I for one condemn this misuse of my religion.

What does "Claim Scandinavian mythology" even mean?

If the terrorists wrote that, he couldn't have been very serious, as he didn't go down fighting.

For the record, it is called Norse Mythology, and it bears a striking resemblance to Greek and Roman mythology, nothing special about it, just some minor local embellishments. Odin = Zeus = Jupiter

Well, after that Tyskland use of Norse mythology a couple of generations ago, it took on a certain flavor that it never had in its homeland.

But give those Norse mythologists in Tyskland some credit - they really did go down fighting, slaughtering as many people as they could.

And it is this twisted version of Norse mythology that is so highly prized by those followers of a certain well known ideology involving heroic blue eyed Aryans fighting against the Boslsheviks in glorious struggle to finally subjugate the Untermenschen as part of a 1,000 year reign.

I hear some mumbling about Heimdall being played by a black is an affront. Yawn! BTW, Tysk=German, Tyskland=Germany

Trump and Himmler thought the best breeding stock is in Norway?

No, they thought the best breeding stock were tall blue eyed blonds. I actually knew the daughter of someone in one of those programs, though with the typical crazy Nazi twist.

That is, this fellow student at GMU had a mother who had an identical twin - both being tall, blonde, and green eyed (as was the daughter actually). The Nazis were fascinated by identical twins, and since this pair fit almost all the criteria for bringing about a glorious Aryan future, they basically rode out the war in the best possible circumstances. Anyone looking for logic involving the Nazis rapidly discovers that the proponents of a master race were generally lunatics.

And Tyskie = Polish beer brand

You are clearly a nut.

I think your clock stopped - it's stuck on Nazi. Everyone not on the left is a Nazi. The Nordica are Nazis. There is a Nazi under your bed.

Are you worried about contrails? The Federal Reserve? The vast, right wing conspiracy?

Try some lithium for mood regulation - it's the gold standard. Uh oh, I wrote 'gold'.

'Are you worried about contrails? The Federal Reserve? The vast, right wing conspiracy?'

Nope, nope, and nope. Why should anyone care about any of those things?

And in case you were unaware, it is the Nazis that incorporated Norse mythology into their vision of genocidal purity (with some help from the already dead Wagner), and why a number of modern white supremacists seem so enamored of a mythology which really has nothing to do with the modern age, except its use by the Nazis.

My first thought was that populations as small as five million can experience large fluctuations due to extreme events. Then I remembered my hometown, Las Vegas, with about two million people in the county now. It experienced a mass killing of 58 people in 2017 and 206 other homicides.

No offense but Las Vegas has long been a magnet for criminals. New Zealand, as far as I know, is not. What a catastrophe.

Your initial thoughts are correct. NZ, 911, and LV are still very infrequent events and spike the statistics. Success of the mass killing plots is also highly variable. In all three of these events, the mass killers were well prepared, but also very lucky. One slip up could have easily resulted in zero deaths.

There is value in counting incidents instead of deaths as a measure. As is always the case with statistics, you never rely on one measure. You must understand the advantages and disadvantages of each of them and create a convincing mosaic.

For example, dont just look at the unemployment rate to evaluate the labor markets. Also look at U6, payroll job growth, labor force participation, JOLTS, confidence surveys, average unemployment duration, demographic data on unemployment, unemployment claims, etc.

NZ is still an extremely safe place. White nationalist attacks are still extremely rare.

This was an interesting thought experience Cowen. Without comment from “the straw stirring the drink” it’s up to us and rightfully so. Feeling a little further from ending the cycle of violence though.

There is no great stagnation?

As an immigrant with a wife from a Muslim background, we have found Kiwis generally to be quite casually racist, but that doesn’t have anything to do with this guy, does it? He is a foreigner who says quite clearly that he was inspired to do this by Muslim attacks while he was living in Europe and he decided to do it in NZ to demonstrate that nowhere is safe.

What is really amazing to me is that in a non-violent society where guns are heavily restricted (e.g. when hosting a world summit they literally had to change the law so world leaders' security details could keep their guns).

Universal firearms licensure, heavy restriction on "military style" semi-automatics, and frankly a pittance of guns per capita.

Or, in other words, restrictions beyond the wildest dreams of the Brady campaign did just about jack all. And even if they had worked, the suspect still rigged explosives to his vehicle.

So what do you suppose the odds are that we will see yet another response like 1990 that will hold for a while until some other jackass manages to do it again?

That would be Australia you're thinking of. New Zealand's gun laws are far more lax and similar to those in Australia before the 1996 Port Arthur mass murder.

No it would be New Zealand. Every firearms owner must have a Class A permit in order to purchase a firearm or ammunition. In order to carry firearms you must have a "fit and proper" reason not including personal protection.

In 1990 the Aramoana Massacre prompted tighter regulation of semi-automatics and "military style" weapons than has ever been close to possible in the US.

Australia, per wikipedia has 14.5 firearms per 100 people. New Zealand has 26.3.

You will pardon me from thinking this is a particularly large difference to a person willing to forfeit their freedom to commit these crimes. Particularly as places like Belgium managed to have grenade attacks.

New Zealand's gun laws are far more restrictive than anything even the left wing of the Democratic Party would pass. And yet they managed to not stop a mass killing. In spite of 30 years where both major parties campaigned on gun control to do just that.

It is not the mass murders that gun laws prevent. If they want to kill they will. It is the vast majority of homicides it will stop where a gun is pulled because "disrespect". Las Vegas had 171 other dumb homicides the year of the shooting. Chicago would benefit from less handguns.

Data only supports this contention after severe correction. The raw R values show no correlation between guns and homicides for say the 50 US states, EU members, or developing nations.

I get the US, Yemen, etc. are full of violent people who use guns to kill people. But among peer polities there just is not a correlation between guns and gun homicides.

Murder appears to be driven almost entirely by cultural legacy. What gun control does, poorly, is decrease the rate of firearms suicides. Of course if you want to prevent suicides there are far cheaper interventions (e.g. training more psychiatrists) that save more lives.

Restrictive laws will not prevent all problems but it will have some effect on the margins. For example, laws against DUI absolutely should be in the books even if it doesn't prevent all drunk deaths. I get that you don't like gun control but your reasoning is off.

Right so we should ban alcohol. Everyone should be required to get a license before being allowed to drink. No should be allow to carry more than a set amount of alcohol (say 4 drinks per person). There should be daily limits on alcohol (say two drinks per day).

Alcohol kills far more people than guns. Depending on your definitions, it kills more innocent people than guns. US prohibition, per the actuarial data, saved more lives than all the gun control in the entire world. Cirrhosis deaths plummeted. Suicides decreased. MVCs declined dramatically per km driven.

In reality any sort of prevention is a balance of cost vs payout. Gun control is terribly inefficient. And the given the wide range of gun policies within similar blocs (e.g. French vs German vs Estonian gun laws or Californian vs Nebraska vs Vermont) there just does not seem to be a difference in actual practice.

By far the best way to prevent all alcohol related deaths is banning alcohol. Yet few people (even me) think this actually a good idea. Shockingly, when I apply the same reasoning to guns we cannot reach consensus and instead I get to hear all manner of silly virtue signalling.

At the end of the day, Americans already kill more people without guns than Europeans do (including guns). That propensity to violence will not magically change if the guns magically disappeared in the night. Given the real costs and all the non-gun deaths, I shall remain unimpressed that gun control actually "solves" problems.

Sorry. Describing New Zealand as a place where "guns are heavily restricted" threw me. That's generally not the impression we have across the Tasman. Although I perhaps should mention Australian gun restrictions are not as strict as some think and this includes Australians. Even I could get one.

'the suspect still rigged explosives to his vehicle'

Which did not work - unlike his highly reliable weaponry.

'New Zealand's gun laws are far more restrictive than anything even the left wing of the Democratic Party would pass.'

And yet so boring that most Europeans would yawn, though there are some people in Britain that would really appreciate British gun laws being liberalized to a New Zealand standard.

You do realize that the U.S. is an outlier, and not a standard of normality, right? And I am writing this in Germany - 'But even given Germany’s strict gun policies, the country was still home to the fourth-highest number of legal guns per capita in 2013, falling behind just the United States, Switzerland and Finland.' You are welcome to read the rest here -

You do realize that globally Western Europe is the outlier and much of the human population lives in places with far more ready access to guns and ammunition, right? It is only if you include autocracies without democratic representation that gun control more strict than New Zealand is anything other than an outlier.

Mexico, Pakistan, Argentina, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, India, and the Central African Republic for instance, all have more liberal gun laws in at least some respects than New Zealand.

At best, gun control ends up being an expensive luxury only effectually enjoyed by wealthy states. At worst, as it commonly is, it becomes an expensive resource sink that diverts resources from far more common causes of death.

We understand, Europe likes having gun laws that appear to be quite circumventable by mass killers, but also likes to scold other places that do not burn cash on this wasteful set of policies.

The truth is that gun homicides are utterly uncoordinated with gun ownership rates in the raw data. Gun ownership does have some coordination with gun deaths, driven entirely by suicides. But when it comes to suicide prevention, gun control is highly cost ineffective. For every dollar of gun control enforcement you get something like 20 cents of direct psychiatric intervention. Further, the simple policy of not legalizing euthanasia, yet places like Belgium with high suicide rates are quite happy to demolish cultural taboos that prevent far more suicides than guns ever could.

'You do realize that globally Western Europe is the outlier and much of the human population lives in places with far more ready access to guns and ammunition, right? '

I believe your term was 'peer polities' when comparing the U.S. to other countries. And to argue that guns are commonly available in China and India, to name two non-peer polities representing one third of humanity, would be silly. And let us be honest - Japan, South Korea or Taiwan look like Europe (not just Western Europe), not the U.S.

'It is only if you include autocracies without democratic representation'

Certainly a fair representation of China, but not of India.

'being an expensive luxury only effectually enjoyed by wealthy states'

Which again does not describe India, representing roughly a sixth of all humanity. Maybe this link will help? - 'As mass shooting incidents in the United States rise, India has tightened its firearms regulations, making it even more difficult for common citizens to own a gun.

India already had some of the strictest gun laws in the world, a vestige of British colonial rule, which aimed to disarm its subjects. Indian law allows citizens to own and carry guns, but it is not a right enshrined in the constitution. Getting a gun license in India is a difficult task that can take years.

Now, in the most ambitious restructuring of arms rules in more than five decades, the government has made the laws even tougher. Prospective gun owners will have to show they have been trained, and they must carry their firearms only in holders and secure them in a “knocked down” condition in gun lockers at home.' Sounds a lot like the German model, actually.

'Europe likes having gun laws that appear to be quite circumventable by mass killers'

So circumventable that most of the latest European terrorist mass murderers have used vehicles. Wait, that actually does not make sense, does it?

'The truth is that gun homicides are utterly uncoordinated with gun ownership rates in the raw data.'

Yet mass murdering terrorists seems to have some difficulties in countries like Australia or the UK or Germany when it comes to using firearms to commit mass murder. You really seem to be trying to make a distinction between firearm homicides and the use of military grade (semi-) automatic weaponry by mass murdering terrorists world wide.

Even more interesting, which of the top 4 countries in terms of private weapon ownership stands out in terms of mass murder, involving a variety of killers, from those claiming they are ideologically driven (Orlando) to the clearly mentally ill (Aurora) to the apparently unknowable (describing the Las Vegas case of the man currently at the top of the American mass murder firearm death toll list).

I explicitly did NOT use "peer polities" when comparing the data on guns and homicides. I compared US states with each other and I compare EU nations to each other. My contention has long been that Europe is very culturally distinct from the US so that comparisons of their healthcare systems, policing habits, and the like are not valid.

Peer polities for the US at the national level are going to be few and far between, but some of the core features would be not being an ethnically homogeneous cluster of dense metropolitan areas. Places like Canada, Russia, and China in many ways have much more similarity on the fundamentals to the US than say The Netherlands or even Germany. It gets very hard because for some many statistics (e.g. material wealth, gun possession, crime, religiosity) the US is a clear statistical outlier from the rest of the world.

That being said, there are virtually only two types of countries that do not allow self-defense as a valid reason for firearm ownership: Rich countries with well entrenched rule of law who can afford to waste on enforcing gun bans and authoritarian states who explicitly wish to disarm the populace to make them easier to rule.

We can argue about which policies make gun laws "strict" and which make them "loose" but for most people in the world, being armed for "self defense" is a reasonable standard. They may think a knife should be sufficient for most people, they may think that you need to register your weapons, but it is by far the minority of people who think that "self defense" is a completely illegitimate reason to arm oneself; New Zealand explicitly holds that "self-defense" is an illegitimate reason to arm oneself.

For the vast bulk of the human population such ideas are nonsensical. So yes, Europe is indeed the outlier. You need to awfully competent police, politics, and culture before the populace is willing to entrust personal protection solely to government agents.

As far as terrorist armament. Exactly which jurisdictions in this world have legal hand grenades? Yet Sweden reported 40 grenade attacks in 2016 alone. But surely this is isolated? Except that the Liege attacker somehow manage to get not just grenades but also a rocket launcher. But surely both of these are flukes? Except the Bataclan attacks also managed to get grenades. And the Strausburg attacker managed to have a highly illegal grenade in his home.

Austria, Belgium, France, Sweden ... these are not a list of states with weak central states or states with constitutional rights to weaponry. Yet somehow terrorists nevertheless managed to get grenades, sometimes even while being monitored by the state security apparatus.

As far as Australia, in Paramatta the killer had a firearm and was stopped because Australian police shot him dead. In the UK Lee Rigby's killers somehow had a firearm. And Germany and the Frankfurt AIrport shooting.

Mass terrorism is not about the rules regarding weapons. It is about who is willing to become a terrorist and how much they are willing to sacrifice. Sure, you might move the needle a little bit by making firearms more expensive, but this is short sighted and silly. In the not too terribly distant future those who are willing to throw away their lives for this sort of thing will easily be able to afford 3D printing, or worse explosives will continue to become more lethal and reliable for untrained individuals.

It is vastly more effective for crime prevention, mortality prevention, and terrorism prevention to go after problematic people than such robust and simple weapons as firearms.

'I explicitly did NOT use "peer polities" when comparing the data on guns and homicides.' I guess that was not clear from what you wrote - 'I get the US, Yemen, etc. are full of violent people who use guns to kill people. But among peer polities there just is not a correlation between guns and gun homicides.'

'or even Germany'

Ever lived in Germany? There is surprisingly little difference between the 25 years I spent in NoVa and the 25 years here, compared to the differences between NoVa and Nevada in 1986. Leaving aside the past 25 years - America seems to have become considerably different in the past couple of decades to what I knew in 1980, in a fashion less dramatic, but somewhat equivalent to the differences in Germany between 1920 and 1930 (do note that 1930 - the next 15 years became a nightmare that was not explicitly obvious in 1930).

'That being said, there are virtually only two types of countries ...'

Well, still not mentioning where 15% of humanity lives - is there some reason India is so easy for you to ignore when making your arguments?

'but for most people in the world, being armed for "self defense" is a reasonable standard'

It was not a normal standard in NoVa in 1980, though that people could own weapons for a number of reasons was accepted of course. But the idea you needed a weapon constantly for self-defense was considered close to lunatic. That might have something to do with growing up among so many military officers - one other place you are not allowed to carry a weapon constantly is the military, apart from combat areas. The military, strangely enough, is one of the organizations most dedicated to strict gun control, as you seem to see it. Might have something to do with the fact that the military actually knows what their weaponry is intended to do.

'For the vast bulk of the human population such ideas are nonsensical.'

The idea of walking around constantly armed? Why yes, such ideas are generally considered nonsensical - again, you have left out China, India, Japan, South Korea (among others) - that is easily half of humanity who would think that needing to have a weapon constantly available for self defense is nonsensical. Or a sign of the breakdown of civilization, admittedly.

'Yet somehow terrorists nevertheless managed to get grenades'

And still manage to build bombs, much like the IRA used to get weapons and build bombs. However, nobody has said these white supremacists are foot soldiers in an extensive terrorist network stretching back for decades and over multiple countries. Comparing such Islamic terrorists to the IRA is fruitful. Comparing them to a man shooting out of his hotel window isn't - or for that matter, a man shooting into a mosque, like in Canada, so as to keep various mass murderers distinct.

'Sure, you might move the needle a little bit by making firearms more expensive'

Not more expensive - less available. Much like how the rules about making physically punishing children a crime are basically an attempt to expose child abusers, as the number of children being physically punished decreases to a level that makes it much more difficult for child abusers to get lost in the crowd, so to speak.

'or worse explosives will continue to become more lethal and reliable for untrained individuals'

Like in Manchester, to give one obvious recent example. Wonder why the bomb builder didn't get a few automatic weapons or grenades to use first, before detonating his bomb. Couldn't have anything to do with how easy such things are to get in the UK, could it, with that needle moving just a bit?

'to go after problematic people'

See the example about child abuse. If you reduce the amount of 'legal' physical punishment it becomes much easier to then recognize the 'problematic' child abusers. Note that this will not stop all physical child abuse, it will just make it much easier to stop it in many more cases. You are welcome to argue that the same framework would not apply to making military grade weaponry essentially unobtainable or possess legally - it is certainly the sort sure thing one has come to expect.

Yes, I spent just under two years in Ramstein and traveled a bit during that time. During my time in Germany I encountered more racists than in any similar period in the States. I also encountered epic levels of waste of human talent and time. In general, Germany seemed to be one of those silly places that cared far more about what you tried to do than what you actually accomplished. I do not claim to have had the full German experience due to the circumstances which brought me over (e.g. I speak no German), but I was not overly impressed.

India is complicated. As I noted in some respect it is far more liberal than New Zealand regarding guns. For instance, India allows for firearms possession for reasons of personal protection. They still require the licensure of firearms owners, but the allowed list of reasons is more liberal than New Zealand. Similarly Indian criminal penalties for invalid ownership are less harsh than that of New Zealand. Concealed carry of weaponry, with appropriate permit, is legal in India but not New Zealand.

India is still more heavily regulated with regards to weapons than much of the world, but on a number of basic questions regarding personal protection it aligns much more with the global consensus than with "The West" and the authoritarian states. Whether or not you agree, India does allow people to be licensed to carry a personal protective weapon for reasons of self-defense.

You do realize that several of the grenade incidents I cited are officially "lone wolf" attacks right? That several of the others had zero connection to Islamic terrorism as well. Or that Sweden had a mass outbreak of grenade attacks by multiple organizations without ties to international terrorism.

Again, the point is somehow all the laws in the world were not sufficient to stop dedicated individuals from using production explosives which are vastly easier to detect, trace, and confiscate than firearms. Does this mean that I think Europe is incompetent at explosives control? Of course not, I just think drawing policy conclusions from low N events, particularly those with available alternatives like automobiles and explosives are not really all that useful.

Available is just another word for cheap. Japan, for instance, has highly lucrative trade in illicit weaponry from the US. I just don't see how we expect to actually stop the equivalent of stamped metal firearms from rolling off 3D printers as the latter become ever cheaper.

Certainly every bit of data I have seen suggests that the UK and Germany spend small fortunes on weapons interdiction, punishment, and incarceration. If you want to save lives I can cite dozens of more effective ways to buy QALYs.

But hey if moral posturing is more important than saving lives, I understand.

Martin Byant, the man who shot dead 35 people in Tasmania in 1996, could not have obtained the firearms he used if Australia's current gun laws had been in place back then. When he applied for a disability pension the assessment in part read, "Cannot read or write. Does a bit of gardening and watches TV..."

I don't know about the United States, but here our mass murderers tend to be a bit crap.

His weapons were not reliable and he had no training. He had multiple malfunctions and failures to quickly reload which gave numerous opportunities to tackle him.

In the second mosque, an (illegally?) armed worshipper likely saved a lot of lives.

'His weapons were not reliable '

Number of bombs that went off - 0

Number of people hit by his unreliable firearms - 97

I guess we have very different definitions of reliability.

And according to the NZ government, it was two cops that stopped his shooting spree. 'Speaking on Saturday in Christchurch, New Zealand’s prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, said the suspect charged over the killings intended to “continue with his attack” when he was intercepted by police.

She said the man was arrested by two “rural community cops” 36 minutes after the first emergency call was made on Friday and was still an active shooter.

“There were two other firearms in the vehicle that the offender was in and it absolutely was his intention to continue with his attack,” she told reporters in Christchurch on Saturday.' One assumes that the PM actually knows just a bit more than you, and that the two police officers were legally armed.

There are a lot of bad answers on this page. Some are "but Muslims are bad" level bad.

But I would like to ignore that for now and address a higher order concern, for a different audience.

Starting 10 or 20 years ago there developed a thing where white men on the internet would declare themselves "realists" on "race." I am sure the vast majority of them were perfectly nonviolent people, just flirting with dangerous ideas. Bell curves, statistics of .. whatever.

I think they were wrong in their statistics and generalizations, but there is something more important than that. They should have understood that they were laying a foundation for people who were not as sophisticated nor as nonviolent. If they had any experience of the world, they should have understood.

When these church, synagogue, and mosque killers write manifestos about lesser peoples corrupting the country (countries) and white genocide they are very much pulling from that foundation.

They have been told, by people who can do their i's and cross their t's, that it's all true.

Those people should get straight now, and understand that acceptance of a common humanity, and human dignity, isn't just right - it is the only path that doesn't lead to more of the same.

This man, whatever he is (other than a worthless child play acting tough while shooting innocents at a house of god), is not a Sailerite. Nor a Charles Murray.

His unhinged rant is another thing entirely, half memes and half whacko “race separatism.” Sailer is against immigration partly to protect labor markets for citizen minorities. He’s morally wrong. Charles Murray wants a UBI. He’s morally wrong also.

But This shtick of yours is no different from the anti-Islam crap we get to see every time there’s a terror attack of a different flavor.

Stop conflating mass murder with half the political spectrum. He described this as “a real life effort shitpost.” He’s literally trolling us into hate.

Stop taking it on yourself to defend "realism" on "race" as "half the political spectrum."

Kind of a key error.

Your proposal sounds like the approach of the Catholic church to Galileo's ideas - it didn't matter if he was right or wrong, what matters is the ideas could disturb society and should therefore be suppressed. I think we can all see that this approach was not effective and in the long run caused more harm than good. I believe in free speech, even for maniacs and lunatics. I don't believe in preventing people from freely expressing their ideas, even if I am strongly against them. Longer term society is more healthy for this.

Of course violence should always be condemned and prevented where-ever possible, but I am not going to confuse expression of ideas, with those who use those ideas to justify violence. In fact that would directly fall into the trap of many of the anti-immigration lobby - one muslim committing an act of terrorism should not condemn the muslim religion.

How can a philosophy of racial superiority ever co-exist with philosophies of universal nonviolence, democracy, and human rights?

You may say you promote peace but if you also say that "invaders" are "diluting our life blood" you have a logic problem.

Not to put too fine a point on it, some might be putting the preciousness of their ideas above human life.

And as I say, I think they actually have those ideas wrong. More the tragedy.

The common statistical claims are more or less correct, the causal models are mostly correct, and it would be great if the "Alt-Right" really were built on that base.

Most strongly, African countries and minorities mostly have been constrained in their catch up to the European world, relative to the catch up achieved in East Asia and East Asian minorities, less because of racism or "white supremacy" than primarily weak cognitive abilities. This is also by far most likely to be a simple population genetic difference, based on all the experimental design to try and find an alternative explanation coming up with nothing (after adoption studies and controls finding there is never another explanation that is parsimonious or even which works at all).

Less strongly, Muslim societies do produce weak institutions and tend to produce authoritarianism and religiously violent terrorism and this is probably because of Islam and the deep social effects of cousin marriage, and weak cognitive abilities in Muslim populations don't help with this.

(Not all the random garbage that accumulates in the Sailersphere, where random commentators wax lyrical about genetic selection in the Chinese for the ability to use chopsticks or whatever, but these basic, common claims.).

It would be great if the "Alt-Right" were in any way a movement that had a base in that data and moved from it, because unlike most political movements in society they'd at least have a basis in our best guess for truth.

But they really don't seem to be like that at all.

I won't claim godlike knowledge and say what "is correct."

But I have met a lot of nice people from all over the world, doing all kinds of jobs, and being good members of the community.

That part seems kinda important.

You really don't need to be a god to make a statement on what seems correct here! We're in a pretty f*d world where understanding all this is perceived in the realms of godlike competence. The arguments are fairly simple and straightforward and not particularly complex, and tend to push towards a strongly precautionary stance towards loads of unselected migration (and even some skepticism on selected migration).

"People are generally nice" is not really a counterargument. Like, duh.

Actually, people are generally nice, seems a pretty solid foundation to build a philosophy and life.

And it sure beats the crazy rationalizations of white supremacists.

I'm sure it's a nice way to build a little life, but anyone who can think no further than that, please, probably should stay away from any political discussion about any difficult issue.

"Do we have defense concerns about authoritarian nation x?" - "People are generally nice", "How do we enforce this law proportionately?" - "People are generally nice", etc.

Come on, man. This page is about a guy who could not figure out who his enemies were.

"Hello, brother."

There are a lot of things mixed up in this, about who can and deserves to be your friend. But bias and bigotry lean the wrong way, contributing (obviously) much more violence than they prevent. They are a wrong grouping, with entire races and religions as the enemy.

It's what gets you white supremacists as the top terrorists in the land.

And in this there is no place for polite, armchair, white supremacists. There is actually no distance between the words they bat around in forums like these and in the killer manifestos. The killers just take the same words more seriously.

'towards loads of unselected migration'

Sure seems that way - New Zealand really dropped the ball by letting a mass murdering Australian live there and get a firearm license, didn't they?

Extreme vetting for Australians!

One assumes that a lot of New Zealanders will be expecting that Australians having bought or or trying to now buy several assault rifles will receive extreme scrutiny at this point.

And since there is an Australian here, I will defer to undoubtedly better knowledge if they are interested, but to my knowledge, New Zealand and Australia basically allow 'unselected igration' of their citizens, in essentially the same sort of fashion that Ireland and the UK do with their citizens (something that will remain true after Brexit, as the Irish/UK arrangements predate WWII).

Australian citizens are free to move to and live in New Zealand provided they are of good character. Clearly some manage to slip past this requirement.

How about stats on

Murders committed in NZ by Australians?

NYT:"New Zealand Shooting Live Updates: Talk of Gun Law Reform Begins as Victim Details Emerge" Authoritarians out in force so quickly. Never let a crisis go to waste I guess.

Can you imagine, they want to stop another massacre even before the bodies from this one are buried. Quelle horror.

Oddly. the New Zealanders will probably be looking to Australia for an effective response when it comes to making it difficult for mass murderers to get their hands on military grade weaponry. Particularly in light of the fact that after an Australian slaughtered 35 people, the Australian government took measures that seem to have effective, if the last almost quarter century is any guide.

And I am even more confident that nobody in New Zealand will care the least about whatever responses the NRA puts out after each mass shooting in the U.S.

"Can you imagine, they want to stop another massacre even before the bodies from this one are buried." Well maybe tries something that works then. NZ had 35 murders the year before, with the same laws. You can control nuts. Next time those car bombs will work, or they'll just collapse a building like McVeigh did. BTW, hasn't it been discussed to death that Australia's ban did very little in the long run?

Sorry, you CAN'T control nuts.

But you can, to a certain extent, control their access to military grade weaponry. Which is why mass murdering terrorists in places like Germany or the UK use other methods.

To put it a bit different, you cannot control nuts, but you can do a pretty good job controlling their access to various types of weaponry manufactured the explicit purpose of killing a large number of people reliably.

Australia's gun homicide rate has halved since tighter restrictions where introduced. This wasn't experiment. There was no control Australia. We can't know what the gun homicide rate would be without the tougher gun laws. But it cannot be spun as a failure.

While people still murder others with guns -- although at a much lower rate per capita than in the United States -- there is an entire class of gun murders that hasn't occurred here since 1996 and the introduction of tougher gun laws. This is the shooting of multiple strangers or school mates.

How many were killed in mass shootings before the mass shooting that inspired the stricter gun laws?

Well, you are welcome to read here, and make your own jusdgments -

But here a few - Top End Shootings, 5 dead, June 1987; Hoddle Street massacre, 7 dead, 9 August 1987; Queen Street massacre, 8 dead, 8 December 1987 - so, in 1987, 20 dead, and 24 injured

Of course, that was major year for mass murders involving killing strangers. Nonetheless, going down the list using the same critieria, the total between 1988 and 1996 was 24 dead and 18 injured.

Since then, the Australians have not experienced any mass 'spree killings' as is the often used term for someone slaughtering strangers. There have been a variety of mass murders, some involving firearms, but they seem to be essentially related to murder/suicides within family boundaries.

There is scant evidence that Australia's assault on gun rights actually created any peace. Mass shootings were already very rare and gun violence in decline before the assault on gun rights. Further, there is now a robust black market in weapons in Australia where you can even find RPGs apparently.

Um, 'gun rights' just might have some relevance when talking about the American Constitution, but has nothing to do with Australia or the UK (with considerably stricter laws - and also an interesting lack of firearm mass murder, though mass murdering terrorist do use bombs and vehicles).

And see above - the only reason the evidence is scant is because you haven't bothered to look at it.

The real authoritarians are the majority of New Zealanders who want to protect themselves from gun violence but not the white nationalist mass murderer? Got it.

The terrorist are terrorist. The authorians want to steal people's rights to defend themselves. See? Now you got it.

in other words, whites in new zealand, like in the usa, commit more acts of terrorism than muslims.

Well that definitely sounds like the comment of a vox reader.

Muslims make up roughly 1% of the US population. Whites make up over 60% of the population. So someone a little more astute would probably actually look at more than 1 year and also give the relative numbers.

But no one assumes that Vox is particularly astute after about the first year or so of Vox's publishing history. There was a brief period when there was some promise, then they quickly degenerated into an extremist high brow version of USA today.

To put this in perspective for those from overseas, on a per capital basis the number of innocents killed on Friday, by a visitor spewing an ideology of hatred, is the same as those on 9/11. Right now, I think we just want to grieve and hug our families tightly. And perhaps be forgiven for the occasional knee jerk response.

'is the same as those on 9/11'

In which case, you may want invade Fiji, the same way the U.S. invaded Iraq after a bunch of terrorist Saudis committed mass murder.

Though hopefully that would not become a knee jerk response.

Comments for this post are closed