Massive Shooting at Mosque in New Zealand
- Thread starter i am herdman
- Start date
Obviously. I watched the video (and I do not recommend anyone does unless they are as jaded as me), and while batshsit crazy this guy was methodical. No rage. Just cold. The same cold killing I have seen in ISIS videos. The guy hated Muslims but used video just as ISIS has; I wonder if that occurred to him.
^^I've already answered that question once^^ But here it is again....
^^^When you defend your intolerance of muslims by using the excuse that someone else has not been around them. ^^^
one of my jackass friends messengered me a video earlier. i started watching it and it was a head cam of some guy going into a building firing. at first, i thought it was a paint ball game, people getting hit and falling, playing dead. it wasn't, it was the head cam video of the shooter in the mosque.
i honestly wish i could have back those 2 or 3 minutes of my life.
i honestly wish i could have back those 2 or 3 minutes of my life.
Nope you’ve never answered MY question. No keep dancing around the issue and grow a pair and answer my question.
i saw it on twitter earlier today but apparently it's been removed (which is how i figured out it was the new zealand shooting; after watching the video and seeing the type of building, i hoped it wasnt but thought that's probably what it was, so googled it and it was there). if you really want to see it, PM me a messenger handle and I'll forward it. i'm heading home now and have cooking and drinking on the mind, but will try to get it to you later, again, if you want it or cannot find it through other means.
Just because you’ve never been around a Muslim doesn’t mean others are intolerant.
Which would make one more than you have.
Most hosts have removed the video. Could I find it? Sure, but that was the point of my post - to not have to spend time looking all over for the rare spots it is still up, is there any easy link?
Guessing since you didn't post a link, you also can't find it within a few minutes.
I live in a much more diverse area that you. If there were less guns how would it stop that shooting?
That's correct. It also has absolutely nothing to do with being able to perceive the intolerance of others.
That you live in a more diverse area than me is irrelevant....until you start defending your intolerance by insinuating that if I was in a more diverse area my tolerance would be lower.
Well, let’s think about that. Having 0 guns would fit in your “less guns” question. If there were 0 guns, how would it stop that incident?
Trick question: that incident wouldn’t have happened. Doh!
When there are a plethora of guns, it allows for easy access both legally and illegally. The more there are, the harder it is to keep them out of bad hands. This is stuff a third grader could logically understand.
Raoul, there are some good conspiracy theories floating around about this shooting. Far out there stuff.
So, you are for zero guns in the world? That is what I wanted to hear. But, let's be more realistic at what point is it safe? 10% reduction? 20%? 50% ? 75%?
And considering this was in New Zealand, are you for a world wide reduction or confiscation? And, who does that?
No I have no desire to watch people get shot. I figured a big shot like you would be out in a limo line for some red carpet event in Monaco by now
As much as you have wanted that to be my argument for years, it isn't. I have stayed consistent in what is needed. Guns are far too easy to access and far too low in regulation. At which point is it safe? The lower amount of guns available to the general public, the more safe we are.
Please post your interpretation of this graph, so that I can mock your intelligence.
And if knives were banned, people would resort to baseball bats. If baseball bats were banned, people would resort to fists.
The point? Guns are far more lethal on an individual and mass level than knives. Knives are far more lethal on an individual and mass level than baseball bats. Baseball bats are far more lethal on an individual and mass level than fists.
When something is so lethal - such as guns - they need to be highly regulated. Knives are not nearly as lethal, thus they don't have much restriction.
How some of you eliminate all logic and reasonability on certain topics just to align with your preferred political party is baffling.
more guns doesn't equate to more murders and gun ownership per capita has little, if anything, to do with the murder rate.
now, post one of your diatribes full of a hot streaming pile of horse shit, and prove otherwise.
chop chop, asshole.
After all of these years, you should know I don't have to research things I speak on.
This issue has been debated countless times on here. I am familiar with the statistics for both the U.S. and international.
Thank god you only had to go back more than five years to find an incident of knife killings to rival the plethora of gun killings each year. Then, to make your attempt even more comical, you used one where there were eight killers attacking people. That means that they averaged killing less than four people.
What if all eight of them had guns? They would have easily crushed the number of murders in a crowded subway station. And that's the point. Guns are far, far more lethal than knives. Even in a crowded subway station, eight killers averaged less than four deaths. Had all of them had guns, it would have been immensely more than that.
