Week 10: ‘Hiding in plain sight’: In quiet New Zealand city, alleged gunman plotted carnage
Summary:On March 15, 2019 there was a brutal shooting in New Zealand at 2 different mosques. The first was at the Al Noor mosque and the second was the Linwood mosque. The attack was carried out on Friday during prayer. The shooter (his name won't be mentioned because that is one of the reasons he carried out this attack-attention-he will simply be referred to as the shooter) shot 50 people to death, and wounded dozens of others. As the attacks were carried out, the shooter streamed the shootings on Facebook for other to see, thankfully these videos have been taken down by social media companies. Because the shooter was obviously trying to get attention for his actions, the New Zealand authorities have blurred out his face. The shooter's want for attention has made people so upset that the New Zealand prime minister said "You will never hear me mention his name"
Reaction:
When I actually did more research into the shooter and the attack itself, I was shocked by the amount of preparation the shooter had put into these attacks. The shooter's motives are very clear and frankly, quite frightening. These shootings are just evidence of how devastating nationalistic ideals are to a society as a whole. The amount of preparation that the shooter had put into these attacks is very frightening, because of how devastating the attacks were. I am very glad that the New Zealand government, and most of the press is keeping the shooter as anonymous as possible, and keeping his words private. Keeping the shooter's face blurred and removing the videos he took from the internet is a step in the right direction to help avoid copycats, and honestly the U.S. should follow suite and keep it's future shooters as anonymous as possible.
Connection:
This shooting connects to nationalistic views held by both sides in the Israeli-Palestine conflict. The shooter holds very strong beliefs in his views, up to the point where he carried out two mass shootings, killing 50 civilians. Similarly, in Israel there were many terror attacks carried out by Arabs with strong nationalistic views, up to the point where they would carry out suicide bombings. As we have seen, the conflict in Israel/Palestine still hasn't been resolved, just like how xenophobia (dislike or prejudice for those from other countries) is still a major issue, which is only worsened by strong nationalistic views. Both sides of the xenophobia/anti-Muslim conflict have carried out attacks against the other because of white-nationalistic views and strong Arab views.
Questions:
- Should countries make stricter gun regulations to avoid these types of attacks?
- Should other countries follow New Zealand's lead in keeping the shooters as anonymous as possible?
- Why do you think countries haven't yet adopted stricter gun laws?
Additional Sources:
I firmly believe that countries need to make stricter gun laws. While people may believe that guns increase violent crime the main negative effect is suicide rates. There are over 7 suicide with a gun in the US for every 100,000 people. This is more than 16 times the amount in Mexico. The US has the highest gun ownership of any country with more than one gun per person. It is estimated that there are nearly 400 million guns in the US. One of the main issues with gun ownership is negligent discharge. This is when guns are accidently fired. This is usually due to people not knowing they are loaded. Additionally, a Harvard study revealed that the more guns owned correlate to more homicides and other types of gun deaths live suicides and deaths caused by negligent discharge. I am in favor of New Zealand keeping the shooter anonymous. A study by the National Center for Health Research found that the more media coverage a shooting gets the more likely it is to motivate copycat shooters. Gun policy is a complicated question. In this case, it took New Zealand 6 days to ban assault rifles like the ones used in the shooting. Major shootings spur countries to take action to limit guns. Britain almost fully outlawed civilian handguns after a shooting in 1997 and Australia bought back over 650,000 guns after a mass shooting in 1996. In the US, gun policy could be a major debate topic this year. Presidential candidates like Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Beto O’Rourke, Elizabeth Warren, all recieved ratings lower than 15 from the NRA in terms of how pro-gun they are. Gun control is being pushed to the national stage and this might be the year where the US passes extensive gun control laws. Ultimately, countries need to pass gun control laws and help prevent future mass shootings.
ReplyDeletehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1205l8IBEg-eeJ0zuIEXT0dXltjEtksbOqyWEcHN6CWo/edit?usp=sharing
DeleteSimilar to what the author stated, many of these hate-filled attacks seem to be the result of extreme nationalism that stems from the thought of superiority that leads to the extermination of other races. That sounds very similar to the buildup of the holocaust
ReplyDeleteI agree with Aidan in that countries need stricter gun laws, especially if there seem to be repeat massacres by people who can legally obtain firearms. Regarding the United States, I think that the only reason stricter gun laws have not been put in place, especially with this presidency, is because gun organizations and advocates like the NRA are profiting. It is the same concept as energy and oil companies continuing to pollute the earth, even though it would be better for the environment and people to stop and turn towards renewable energy. Supporting the idea of stricter gun laws, 67% of Americans believe that US’s gun laws should be stricter (https://www.voanews.com/a/poll-majority-of-americans-favor-stricter-gun-laws/4845710.html). Based on this information, the government will eventually have to pass certain laws for the regulation of guns, since much more people are starting to realize the harm that firearms can cause.
The attack in New Zealand is absolutely horrific and sickening to even think about. I think that it is very smart of New Zealand to keep the identity of the attacker a secret as not to give this man the fame that he wants and the recognition that he wants. In my opinion the argument that many have of taking all guns away or at least semi-automatic rifles doesn’t make much sense as it wouldn’t lower killings. If all guns are to be taken away, the people who wanted guns in the first place as a way to harm others will find a way to get that gun regardless, while the law abiding citizens who wanted a gun to protect themselves won't be able to get one. Just as narcotics are illegal, the people who really want them find a way to get them one way or another. Now if one wanted to only take away semi-automatic rifles and leave other guns, that wouldn’t solve anything either. As mass shootings are committed with handguns at over twice the rate that mass shooting are committed with semi-automatic rifles.(https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/) Handguns can do just as much damage as semi-automatic rifles, as someone with really any knowledge of weapons can load magazines in a matter of seconds just like what happened with the shooting in the bar in LA recently where an ex-marine killed 12 people with a handgun.(https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46135459) Instead of going straight to the conclusion that all firearms should be taken away, we should actually be focusing on how to get guns out of the hands of bad people and into the hands of good people. To do this there should be much more intense and extensive background checks, to the point where if a person lives with someone with a known mental illness, no gun should be given to that individual. The reason the US hasn’t made many changes to our laws with guns is because of our constitution and I feel that is should stay that way. The american people have a right to own firearms just more precautions should be taken in background checks and etc...
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about the fact that background checks should be more intense. As you stated, giving guns to bad people is the #1 issue, not keeping them out of good people. Switzerland's gun laws are very unknown to the majority of Americans, but they do have access to almost all the guns that Americans do. Switzerland merely has stricter laws for getting one's hands on guns, and because of this they haven't had a mass shooting since 2001. In Switzerland, the government has banned the use of automatic rifles, but no other guns; the caveat though, is that anyone who wants a gun has to serve in their reserve military, where they get gun training, then they have to pass a background check where they couldn't have committed any violent crimes, or a large amount of nonviolent crimes (https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/switzerland.php)[btw loc=library of congress.] If the US were to inherit gun laws similar to Switzerland, don't you think that lower the ammounts of mass shootings? (p.s. just to be clear, I'm not proposing a ban on all guns, because that would just be unrealistic. I'm simply proposing a more in depth background check.)
DeleteThis has been a very prominent topic lately and it is astonishing how many shootings happen in order to receive action from the government. It has been proven how easy it can be for someone to obtain a gun, yet laws in the US have not changed. I think it was a good idea to keep the shooter anonymous as possible and to minimize any attention given to him, as well as his certain beliefs or extreme motives that could potentially encourage others. Shootings create fear among many in their everyday lives, such as going to school, going to a mosque, etc., yet governments still choose not to make any changes. I agree with Aidan that this topic will be very important in the time to come in the US. Gun policy is a controversial topic, but something obviously needs to change.
ReplyDeleteWe need to stop giving shooters the attention they crave. The FBI says that the when mainstream media publicizes violent hate crimes, it inspires copycat attacks. (https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/yes-mass-killings-inspire-copycats-study-finds-n386141). These type of people need to be hated, but do not make their name and face famous. He was given an interview, which I am disgusted by. Again, he does not deserve any attention. I think that we can all agree that this was a horrific and tragic event; however, more gun control is not the answer. We keep passing more restrictions, but shootings keep happening. Another law is not going to stop criminals, it is only going to prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting their families. In countries where it is very difficult to obtain a gun, ex England,the number of knife attacks is at an all time high. (https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/09/uk/knife-crime-violence-stabbings-hospital-admissions-gbr-intl/index.html). As it states in the article, they are now working to ban knives. What's next, cars? Swimming pools? Blaming guns for crime is like saying spoons make people fat. A gun is just another tool; when a 'good' person is holding it it can be used for good, when a 'bad' person is holding it it can be used for evil. Clearly, at the core, it is not about guns or weapons; there is a much bigger problem at hand.
ReplyDeleteYou state that guns are a tool and can be compared to a spoon, but guns are a "tool" that is made for the specific reason to harm and kill another human being. The reason guns were invented was to cause the most damage to the enemy in war, and the main reason that the right to bear arms is in the constitution is, because during the time of the revolutionary war the threat of an attack by the British was very real. Today there isn't an outside country, or people regularly attacking our citizens THROUGHOUT America. Today guns are being used not for defense, but in fact for offense against our own citizens. Just last year nearly 40,000 people died from gun violence in America, which is higher than it was for the last 50 years. (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/gun-deaths.html) This is because guns have advanced, and people are still using them for violence. If guns are really useful for self defense, why are so many people still dying? In the article you cited for knife stabbings, it states that "A total of 1,012 people aged between 10 and 19 were admitted to hospital with wounds caused by knives or sharp objects last year." (https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/09/uk/knife-crime-violence-stabbings-hospital-admissions-gbr-intl/index.html) Look at the number of stabbing victims to the number of gun victims. Does 40,000 dead people really seem better that 1,012 dead people? The argument that guns are simply tools for self defense, is simply flawed, because of the fact that if it was effective at self defense, we wouldn't have this many deaths to gun violence.
DeleteI strongly agree with New Zealand's actions toward making the shooter anonymous. In countries such as the US where it seems that public shootings are a norm, many shooters have become glorified by having their name spread nationwide for the horrific actions they have done. In comparison between the way that New Zealand and the US handle(s/d) public shooting situations, it seems that the US media speak about what happened to use as fodder to push their agenda when they should be reporting on it and honor the victims instead of the criminals. I respect and agree with New Zealand's response to the situation and with that other countries such as the US would follow suit because people are becoming desensitized to these acts of pure evil from the constant and possibly over-the-top media coverage.
ReplyDeleteI firmly believe that countries need to develop more stringent gun laws. Although people may think that guns increase violent crime, the main negative impact is suicide rate. In 2017 47,173 Americans died from suicide out of 1,400,000 who attempted suicide. This is about 16 times more than Mexico. For countries with more than one gun per person, the United States has the largest number of guns. It is estimated that there are nearly 400 million guns in the United States. One of the main problems with gun ownership is the negligence of dismissal. This is when the gun was accidentally shot. This is usually because people don't know they are being loaded. In addition, a Harvard study shows that the more guns, the more homicides, and other types of gun deaths can also commit suicide and death due to inadvertent discharge. I agree that New Zealand keeps the shooter anonymous. A study by the National Center for Health Research found that the more media reports, the more likely it is to stimulate the imitation of a shooter. The gun policy is a complex issue. In this case, New Zealand spent six days prohibiting assault rifles, such as for shooting. Major shooting incidents prompted countries to take action to limit guns. After the shooting incident in 1997, the British almost completely abolished the civilian pistol. Australia bought back 650,000 guns after a massive shooting incident in 1996. In the United States, gun policy may become a major controversial topic this year.
ReplyDeleteI commend New Zealand's decision to keep the shooter anonymous. The attention that these people get is definitely a reason that these tragic murders continue. US news sources tend to detail the shooters life to an excessive extent, usually with the intention to discover their motive. However, in my opinion, the public broadcasting of a shooter's background tends to inspire more copycats than discuss solutions to a larger problems of violence among youth, access to vehicles of violence, and mental health. (https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2017/11/06/a-way-to-stop-mass-killers-stop-naming-them) If anything, media should focus on the victims, their families, and how to support them as well as take future preventative measures.
ReplyDeleteI think that in order for countries to stop these kind of attacks, guns would either have to be banned or there would need to be so strict to the point where hardly anyone could get one. Even if gun regulations get stricter, there will still always be people who don't reveal to others that they are bad person. Keeping the shooter's identity anonymous was good and other countries should follow the example as it would protect their families and friends. It would also avoid giving them too much attention as there would be less people trying to investigate the background if they don't know the identity. I think countries haven't adopted stricter gun regulations is due to the difficulty in determining how a person is going to use the gun.
ReplyDeleteI believe that countries should push to make guns harder to get. Limiting the amount of guns that are sold are a key to stopping terrorist attacks by citizens. At the minimum governments should push to ban heavier gun suchs as AR's, and require background checks on everyone who wants to purchase a gun. I believe other countries should follow New Zealand's example as it helps protects his family and others who don't share similar ideals as the shooter. Many countires haven't adopted stricter gun regulations due to people thinking that its taking away their safety and their basic rights. An example of this can be seen in the U.S. as many are split between believing guns are a right and those who want to prevent mass shootings and school shootings that are a serious problem in the U.S.. Hardly any change will likely the National Rifle Association (NRA) funds many republicans campaigns.
ReplyDelete-Ethan Cleary
DeleteI personally agree with New Zealand's approach of trying to keep the shooter anonymous and trying to bring as little attention to the actual shooter rather than the situation and the people it affected. It seems that many people that commit massacres have looked to other mass shooters for tactics and inspiration. This is absolutely horrifying and reducing the amount of media coverage the person gets is a step in the right direction. I believe that New Zealand's Prime Minister coming out and banning semi-automatic guns only days after the shooting is very commendable and a step in the right direction. While I don't feel that banning guns will stop mass shootings and attacks, I do believe that policies must be put into place surrounding the people that get guns and who they are. Stricter background checks and proper training and education on guns are some of the many things that can be done to try and reduce the number of horrific attacks. While it does seem that horrible people will go to great lengths to get there hands on weapon's, making them less available and harder to access will not negatively impact anyone and will can only positively help civilians and our safety. It is very clear that although guns seem to be a much bigger problem in our country than others, it is still a global issue that affects countries world wide. While there is no clear solution, any measures taken to make guns less accessible, especially military style weapons, is a good one.
ReplyDelete