Pratt: what media won’t tell you about the new zealand massacre

[HarryStotle]

And since we don’t live in Afghanistan where we would anticipate wild madman with an unusually high access to guns shooting up public areas where children are, and……… Oh wait, that’s our country. Lost my line of thought there.

You do understand that Australia now has more guns that it did before the voluntary confiscation? And gun violence has still gone down. Seems gun control really makes no difference and doesn’t, in the long term, reduce the numbers of guns.

I thought this story particularly appropriate regarding gun control…

https://www.wrdw.com/nbc26/content/...y-release-of-sperm-to-officers-507189211.html

Shows that the progressive left really doesn’t know where to stop, and at the same time gives “gun control” and “concealed carry,” brand new meanings.

What will be up next for “control?” Words, right?

They can potentially hurt, and speakers cannot be trusted with their use.

Perhaps we can, along the way, discuss why the Senegalese man’s attempt to burn 51 students and their chaperones alive in a school bus in Italy hasn’t gained the attention of the press the way the New Zealand massacre did?

Italian bus driver tries to burn dozens of schoolchildren alive - Breaking News | Daily Mirror

A bus driver in northern Italy abducted 51 children and their chaperones Wednesday, threatening them over a 40-minute ordeal before setting the vehicle on fire when he was stopped by a police blockade, authorities said. ..

www.dailymirror.lk

The press seems to be very keen on inflaming certain issues while keeping quite silent on others. Why would that be exactly, would you suppose?

 

[Peebo]

Cathoholic

Peebo

3h

Peebo . . . .

why not just pray for them and wish them well with their decision…

Because lives are being attacked and lost and Catholic Christians don’t sit by silently even in prayer.

Catholics are called to pray to be sure.

But we are called to do MORE than pray in situations where LIFE itself is under attack.

Just prayer and well-wishing is NOT a Catholic response.

So New Zealand has decided the way to protect its citizens is by stricter gun control…where in Catholic teaching does it say anything about guns…guns and more people packing heat might be the mantra here in the US…I think it would be more Catholic…and Christian…if people could resolve gun violence by other means than everyone arming themselves…maybe New Zealanders don’t believe the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun…maybe they think that if the bad guy can’t get hold of a gun then the good guy doesn’t need one either…that seems more Christian.

 

[Cathoholic]

Peebo . . . .

maybe New Zealanders don’t believe the way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun…

Tell that to New Zealand officer Michelle Evans.

This powerful image of police officer Michelle Evans standing guard with a rose and a hijab has been shared widely. Photo / AP

.

Peebo . . .

maybe they think that if the bad guy can’t get hold of a gun
then the good guy doesn’t need one either…that seems more Christian.

(Bold mine)

Are you suggesting disarming Governments (because of new gun control laws)?
Are you suggesting disarming people who use arms to guard people like you (the police)?

After all, if the "good guy doesn’t need one either", then WHY allow Governments to possess arms?

Just in case?
What if a bad guy doesn’t follow the rules?
Something else?

All those reasons can be just as justifiable for innocent citizens. Sometimes even MORE so.

The NZ Government went after the wrong people here (the innocent citizens) in my opinion and the leftist media helped them.

(Which is exactly what Erich Pratt’s point was when he wrote the OP article I referenced. And Pratt has since been shown to be right. Pratt knew exactly where this was going.)

From the Breitbart article already referenced . . . .

After announcing the ban, Ardern addressed law-abiding gun owners, saying, “To owners who have legitimate uses for their guns, I want to reiterate that the actions being announced today are not because of you, and are not directed at you.

(Bold mine.)

But these actions ARE exactly directed against the law-abiding citizens of New Zealand.

I think the massacre has in a sense, been politicized to further disarm their own citizens,
and frenzied knee-jerk legislation in response to these types of things make bad law.

 

[Peebo]

Who said anything about disarming cops…governments…military…or even the general populace…yours is a typical overreaction for anyone who doesn’t think people should be walking around packing heat to save the world…it hasn’t done much good here in the US…12000 gun related murders each year…another 15-20 thousand gun related suicides and accidental shootings…maybe if people acted like Catholics…or Christians…but that will never happen when you have this mentality by some people that “if more good guys had guns”…I don’t have a problem with anyone having guns for self protection…or hunting…or sport…or collecting…I’ve got 5 and enjoy target shooting…to me the reason for having guns for self protection is because guns are so easy to get here in the US…and there are so many wackos out there with guns that you feel compelled to have a gun for protection…

 

[DENNYINMI]

I think the massacre has in a sense, been politicized to further disarm their own citizens,
and frenzied knee-jerk legislation in response to these types of things make bad law.

I think when there is talk about an opiate epidemic (as in our country) it is done so in the context of opiates.

Talk of plane crashes that fall from the sky? There is talk of planes.

Talk of lettuce that is contaminated? There is the removal of it from the market without delay to avoid consumption.

Lung cancer in association with cigarettes? ……you know the rest.

Your rights to gun ownership does NOT supersede the right to life.

Further more your right to a gun is subordinate to responsibility. When it is abused, it is restricted and there is no other way to do it than by society restriction. Because of gun owners that vehemently fight against tighter availability which assists the nuts having a “right” to ownership, it is YOU, not me that ruins it for your so called unfettered gun rights.

Repeal the second amendment. Its antiquated (1791) and the likes of what we see today isn’t what the founders had in mind…nay, they’d be rolling in their graves at the body count due to the selfishness overtly displayed in the name of “my rights”…My country right or wrong, My mother drunk or sober…(G.K. Chesterton)

For the crowd that still believes your rights will assist in protecting you from the mighty U.S. government, best of luck to you against those Tomahawk missiles. I hear the range on those things is mind-blowing, and they never miss their mark!

 

[GKMotley]

My mother drunk or sober…(G.K. Chesterton)

THE DEFENDANT, “A Defence of Patriotism”/p. 166/ 2nd ed./J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1914

I’m not overly worried about the Tomahawk crowd (I worked on the acquisition of its cousin) as I am the more near and looming threat of folk who use their 1st amendment rights to threaten the 2nd. Surrender your access to that amendment, and we might talk of the 2nd. Later.

 

[Cathoholic]

Peebo . . .

Who said anything about disarming cops…governments…military…

You did.

Why?

Here’s why . . .

You were the one who said

maybe they think that if the bad guy can’t get hold of a gun
then the good guy doesn’t need one either…that seems more Christian.

What do you think this means when people read that?

If “the good guy” does not need to be armed Peebo,
and the police ARE among “the good guys”,
WHAT do you think the implementation of your first and second premise leads to?

 

[Cathoholic]

DENNYINMI . . .

Further more your right to a gun is subordinate to responsibility.

DENNYINMI. I am disappointed you would create such a straw man.

Nobody has suggested gun owners, whether they are police, military, politicians guards, VIP guards, or law abiding citizens should discard their “responsibility”.

NOBODY.

.

DENNYINMI . . .

Your rights to gun ownership does NOT supersede the right to life.

The “right to life” is exactly the foundation that self-defense rests on DENNYINMI.

There are a lot of victims in this massacre that could have been served by means to defend themselves.

Your answer to that problem in effect?

Make it worse.

Make it TOUGHER for innocent helpless victims to defend themselves.

.

DENNYINMI . . .

it is YOU, not me that ruins it for your so called unfettered gun rights.

Good grief.

(I never said it was “you” DENNYINMI.
And now, according to you,
this is the fault of . . . . none other than Cathoholic [“YOU”].
As I said. Good grief.)

Where do you think ANYONE has “unfettered” gun rights? I have no idea where you are coming up with these things.

(Have you even read the “hoops” gun owners in New Zealand are put through?

• New Zealand has far greater gun control than we have in the United States.
• New Zealand requires gun-owner licensing, registration for certain guns, universal background checks and more.
• Authorities will even investigate gun buyers by interviewing family members before issuing licenses.

Do you know about the thousands of pages of laws in the US and that we have a whole branch of law enforcement that specializes in this?

What is your definition of “unfettered” DENNYINMI?)

.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

How can you be sure some such person will be on hand?

I can’t. We do our best.

I live in an area where it seems like everyone is armed. My husband is a white collar professional and he doesn’t know anyone at his office of 70 people who isn’t armed…

That is a very unusual workplace in my experience. When you say “armed,” do you mean “owns a gun” or “always carries a gun everywhere they go”? I would be very surprised if it were the latter. In fact I would be very surprised if 5% of those at your husband’s workplace carry a gun everywhere they go.

 

[Cathoholic]

More of Pratt’s admonition about the press being verified and lived out. This time by NPR and Kevin Rudd.

NPR Allows Former Australian PM Kevin Rudd to Blame Breitbart, Falsely, for New Zealand Terror​

22 Mar 2019 Breitbart News

. . . Rudd replied:

Well, both here in United States, and Australia and other Western countries, you see the rise of the alt-right, and you see it is bubbling out all over the place, whether it’s in Breitbart or in some of the other alt-right, far-right, racist outlets [sic] around the world, and these things feed off each other. Within Australia, of course, you have far right-wing political forces. These folks also fanned this sort of sentiment within Australia.

Inskeep, who interviewed Breitbart News senior-editor-at-large Joel B. Pollak after the 2016 election and knows Rudd’s accusation to be false, did not correct his guest. . . .

NPR Allows Former Australian PM Kevin Rudd to Blame Breitbart, Falsely, for New Zealand Terror

Former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd told NPR that Breitbart was to blame for inciting last week's terror attacks in New Zealand.

www.breitbart.com

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Breitbart reports " Inskeep, who interviewed Breitbart News senior-editor-at-large Joel B. Pollak after the 2016 election and knows Rudd’s accusation to be false, did not correct his guest. . ."

Why does interviewing someone from Breitbart News in 2016 mean he necessarily accepts that person’s view? Given that Rudd’s accusation was misstated in this piece anyway, because apparently Breitbart is a snowflake publication that cannot take any criticism, how could anyone say objectively that Rudd’s view needs to be “corrected?” That sounds like 1984 to me. Let’s hope Breitbart never gets in the position of Big Brother.

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle . . .

Why does interviewing someone from Breitbart News in 2016 mean he necessarily accepts that person’s view?

Because Breitbart made it clear they are not “alt-right” and if I recall correctly, they brought that issue out on his (NPR’s Inskeep’s) show then (so Inskeep knows this directly to be false).

Again. I may not be recalling the events correctly, but I think that is what they mean here Leaf.

 

[RuthAnne]

In fact I would be very surprised if 5% of those at your husband’s workplace carry a gun everywhere they go.

I don’t think anyone carries a gun “everywhere” they go. Most of us respect rules and don’t carry guns into places that don’t allow them. But if you mean their cars, purses, backpacks, holsters, etc., then you would be sorely wrong about the 5 percent. They carry at work, play, and businesses that allow them. My husband’s work place is not unusual for this neck of the woods. We don’t have many unhinged gun control freaks around here.

 

[upant]

How could you get enough people to carry weapons everywhere they go to do any good in stopping gun deaths?

how do you know how many people carry concealed?

how many will have their gun with them and ready for use?

what does this mean? the piece is holstered. most train in drawing and firing. if you carry you are usually ready to use. even if it is in a fanny pack many are just a velcro strip away.

I know it has happened on rare occasions

rare because of draconian laws concerning concealed carry and gun-free-zones

people to voluntarily carry their gun (for no pay) and stop bad guys.

you will never stop them all, some will suicide by cop. you are overreaching to go for zero.

at home will cause more deaths (especially due to suicide, which is the biggest source of gun deaths)

japan shows that if they don’t have guns they will use another method, God rest their souls.

law enforcement people get training in how to use a weapon in a crowded environment that goes way beyond what the usual gun owner gets, which is slim to none.

this same training is available to civilians, training is big business. a lot of people take training at levels much higher than the local cop gets.

When the real crime stoppers arrive will they be able to ask you (while the shooting is taking place) if your the protector or the perpetrator?

when you take a concealed carry course from a good training instructor they explain how to handle this situation. there are courses that deal with nothing but this.

And gun violence has still gone down.

unless you live in Melbourne

The killings of two men on Monday night capped off four days of gun violence which altogether left four dead and two others critically injured in the Australian city of Melbourne. 5th March 2019 01:08:34

maybe they think that if the bad guy can’t get hold of a gun then the good guy doesn’t need one either…

how do you stop the bad guy from getting a gun? banning them did not work in Australia. as shown above, there are more guns there now than before the buyback. do you think the crooks in New Zealand will turn in the guns they now hold? who will have the upper hand when the only ones keeping the guns are the ones who will be willing to use them illegally?

to me the reason for having guns for self protection is because guns are so easy to get here in the US

even if we outlawed them, the open border and port of entry would see guns pour into the black market. you would see cheap guns on every street corner being sold by every drug dealer.

 

[upant]

Your rights to gun ownership does NOT supersede the right to life.

my right to life is based on my right of gun ownership. it is a two-way street. if people in the mosque carried someone could have stopped the massacre earlier and saved lives.

they’d be rolling in their graves

yes, they would but not over guns but other things we accept as normal that they would not stand for. you know what they are and I would be banned for listing them.

Repeal the second amendment. Its antiquated (1791)

it is needed as much today as when it was written.

I hear the range on those things is mind-blowing, and they never miss their mark!

how well did Russia do in Afghanistan? how well did we do in Afghanistan? would we take out city blocks in hometown USA? it would be a guerrilla war. the enemy would hit a target and then fade into the populous and only lose when a quisling fool is bought.

 

[GKMotley]

We may have to rethink the idea of the 2nd amendment and crewed weapons.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle . . .

Why does interviewing someone from Breitbart News in 2016 mean he necessarily accepts that person’s view?

Just because Pollak says Breitbart is not “alt-right” does not mean it isn’t “alt-right.” Inskeep apparently realizes this and therefore felt no need to “correct” Rudd for stating something that is merely contrary to the (possibly disceptive) claim by Pollak.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

In fact I would be very surprised if 5% of those at your husband’s workplace carry a gun everywhere they go.

I don’t think anyone carries a gun “everywhere” they go.

That sort of shoots down the claim of being there to protect the public, doesn’t it?

 

[GKMotley]

I’ll rethink it carefully.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

How could you get enough people to carry weapons everywhere they go to do any good in stopping gun deaths?

how do you know how many people carry concealed?

How do you know? If you cannot guarantee me a certain number then I cannot rely on them to protect the public.

how many will have their gun with them and ready for use?

what does this mean?

It means being able to get to your gun and use it before the shooter you want to stop does much more damage. Having a gun in the trunk of your car in the parking lot does no good if the shooter is inside the building and you have to run outside to get your gun.

I know it has happened on rare occasions

rare because of draconian laws concerning concealed carry and gun-free-zones

No, there have been plenty of shootings in areas where concealed carry is legal and where no one of that sort stopped the shooter.

people to voluntarily carry their gun (for no pay) and stop bad guys.

you will never stop them all, some will suicide by cop. you are overreaching to go for zero.

I would be happy if you could stop just 25% of them. But that will never happen, even if all gun laws were removed.

at home will cause more deaths (especially due to suicide, which is the biggest source of gun deaths)

japan shows that if they don’t have guns they will use another method, God rest their souls.

There are many factors affecting the suicide rate. Japan is a different culture with different social pressures. But in studies where those factors are controlled for, there is a clear relationship between suicides and gun availability.

law enforcement people get training in how to use a weapon in a crowded environment that goes way beyond what the usual gun owner gets, which is slim to none.

this same training is available to civilians,

Yes, but try making that training mandatory, and the NRA will scream bloody murder. It does not do any good to have training available if those with the guns don’t choose to take the training.