The motivations of the deranged individual who shot up two mosques in southern New Zealand bring forth some long overdue considerations: are firearms an issue, or do we have a problem with political and ideological manipulation?
“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 within 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 fracturing of the US along cultural and racial lines.”
These words come straight from the eleventh page of the 74-pages-long delirant manifesto titled The Great Replacement, drafted by the man who – ranging between white supremacy, “eco-fascism” and refusal of classic conservativism – has been responsible for the death of fifty persons in two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand.
While coming from the mind of a terrorist, these words should indeed spur a reflection. Particularly since the Herald – New Zealand’s most important newspaper – reports how the number of victims in the second mosque attacked by the shooter, the Linwood Islamic Center, was reduced by the reaction of one of the worshippers there, who chased him off by returning fire with a long gun.
The immediate reaction to the horror of the massacre, streamed live on Facebook, was the usual chorus of politicians, journalists and so-called opinion leaders in the United States and Europe spewing the buzzword of gun control as the sole way to prevent this kind of tragedies, sometimes with almost comedic implications (such as when Democrat Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blamed Donald Trump and the NRA for a shooting that took place in a Country where neither exist!); and of course, the usual reductio at Hitlerum against whoever would disagree with open-border migration policies.
And yet it’s impossible to ignore the manifesto: these politicians, journalists and opinion leaders are falling for the terrorist’s game and – more or less intentionally – are preparing to do his bidding in dividing our societies on a paramount liberty issue such as gun rights and self-defense, all in a day when once again armed citizenry has proven itself as the sole real deterrent against this kind of murderous rampage. Because if lives were saved today at the Linwood mosque, it was thanks to an armed individual. Not Police, not the government, not gun control. Which is perfectly in line to the FBI’s own conclusions following an analysis of all mass shootings that took place in the US in the years 2016 and 2017: armed citizenry saves lives.
And yet, we can expect the jackals of gun control – because that’s what they are – go on right away with the exploitation of this tragedy to push for further disarmament of law-abiding population, using the blood of forty-nine innocents to paint monster masks on the faces of all legal gun owners worldwide. But in a Country like New Zealand, where progressively tighter gun control was enacted following the 1990 Aramoana shooting and the 1997 Raurimu shooting, it should by now be very clear how gun control has proven to be completely ineffective in preventing this kind of tragedies.
This won’t stop gun control supporters and many others to blame anybody and anything who has been “connected” to the shooting – firearms, freedom of expression, YouTuber PewDiePie, Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, Candace Owens, Donald Trump, the NRA – as long as they won’t have to face the truth.
And the truth is that the attack was planned for months, if not for years, and often discussed on-line, and yet the shooter remained undetected. The truth is that the shooter, an Australian citizen, who claims to have learned the principles of “ethno-nationalism” by the videogame Spyro The Dragon (!) managed to fool the authorities of two Countries, Australia and New Zealand. The truth is that he used firearms to ensure visibility and media coverage on his deeds, which should spur a reflection on the voyeuristic and politically-oriented coverage that the mainstream Media always provide to this kind of events; the truth is that the body count at the Linwood mosque was not just as high as it was at the Al-Noor mosque not thanks to a miracle, but to an armed citizen.
The awful truth is that, if any new gun law is passed or even just proposed in the light of the Christchurch mosque shootings, either in New Zealand or elsewhere, the terrorist will have won.
In 2017, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg stated:
“We don’t check what people say before they say it, and frankly, I don’t think society should want us to. Freedom means you don’t have to ask for permission first, and by default, you can say what you want.”
Good to know, but… then we have a question for Mr. Zuckerberg.
What strategy, exactly, lays behind Facebook’s decision to control in advance and not authorize the publication of state laws compliant (and therefore “legal”) ads about firearms and sport shooting related topics, while at the same time a terrorist is allowed to live-stream a massacre on Facebook?
Judging from what we have learned, it looks like Facebook cannot prevent criminals to post what they want to, but can interfere in advance with the free will of law abiding citizens - that is exactly what legal gun owners are: honest and law abiding citizens.
What happened in New Zealand clearly shows what each one of us already knew: Facebook policies on firearms, "sold" as a solution to protect people from the firearms dangers, are facious and useless. And the Christchurch massacre is there to prove this. Politics, not policies.
Should he decide to devote some of his time to (at least) reason on these points, Mr. Zuckerberg should also try to explain us his concept of FREEDOM, and why the Social Network he manages consider it proper to respect or disrespect the individual rights of people basing on “Facebook Universal Laws”, instead of those granted by the Constitutions of all democracies around the World.
We know, of course, that Mark Zuckerberg will never answer our questions. But then we’d like ALL OF YOU READERS out there to be aware of the consequences that Facebook, used and managed in a bad way, will have on the future of our FREEDOM to cultivate our LEGAL interests in firearms and sport shooting.
We know this is impossible, but what if ALL gun enthusiasts and shooters all over the World would stop using Facebook, and possibly find other solutions to keep in touch one each other?
Impossible? Maybe you are right.
But then, please, stop asking your governments to respect your right to keep and bear arms. Because the principle is basically the same.