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

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):


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):


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

* 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.

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.