In The Shadow of Christchurch: The International Gun Debate

Image via The Intercept

I could have chosen any weapons or means.A TATP filled rental van.* Household flour, a method of dispersion and an ignition source.A ballpeen hammer and a wooden shield.Gas,fire,vehicular attacks,plane attacks, any means were available. I had the will and I had the resources.

I chose firearms for the affect it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the affect it could have on the politics of United states and thereby the political situation of the world. The US is torn into many factions by its second amendment, along state, social, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines. With enough pressure the left wing within the United states will seek to abolish the second amendment, and the right wing the US will see this as an attack on their very freedom and liberty. This attempted abolishment of rights by the left will result in a dramatic polarization of the people in the United States and eventually a fracuring of the US along cultural and racial lines.

The Great Replacement, New Zealand Terrorist Manifesto

*TATP: A homemade explosive common in IED and VBIED attacks

He is evil… Not stupid

The NZ terrorist knew the reaction the civilized world would have towards his actions, not hard to extrapolate as it is broadcast after every violent disaster that fits the narrative he wanted to play on. The reactions are largely predictable. Horror and then a retreat to our natural biases.

The immediate lines of battle and arguments emerged on cue. Gun controllers flooded out nationally and internationally to decry the access to such “instruments of mass destruction” as rifles and shotguns.

A few New Zealand residents have voluntarily and publically surrendered their arms in a symbolic gesture of #NeverAgain.

These well meaning people misunderstand violence and extremism. They cannot see the forest for the trees. They see that a weapon was used to devastating effect and that those people in society who possess such weapons possess the potential to commit such an act or, more accurately, unintentionally arm such an act. In their shocked and recoiling minds removing that potential is an obvious and logical step. That’s the tree.

The forest is the motivated violence concept. The forest is ‘why?’. Why did the attack occur?

This isn’t hard to answer, he told us in poorly grammared detail. We just dislike the answer. A certain percentage of the population will always be willing to use violence. They do not possess the social stigma associated with violence. The portions of society who do possess, and even praise, that stigma as morally more righteous have a tremendous difficulty rationalizing those who do not.

Violence is neutral. Possessing the capacity for violence is not indicative of intent. Action is indicative.

It is disheartening how divided this bastard has exposed us to be. Furthermore, he called it. It’s all there in the 74 insane pages. We are giving him exactly what he wants with this debate.

He knew it was terrorism. He claims it personally as a “partisan action against an occupying force.” After acknowledging it fit the definition of terrorism, he justified why his was ‘special’ and therefore not actually real terrorism. Par for the course with an extremist.

Be ready. The cry for more government is coming now, loudly, across the world. It’s a visceral cry that comes from a place of anguish and pain.

Cool heads need to make policy.