Pewdiepie left "sickened" after New Zealand shooter names him in livestream

[wiyosaya]

EDITOR: Change this headline. This is not a ‘Shooter’. This is a Terrrorist. This is a mass murder committed to send a political message according to the perpetrators own statement. Use the correct language.

I see you are following the US legal definition of the term.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

You don't need to be armed to take out someone with a gun. Take the guy who took down the shooter in the pancake house, for instance - https://www.tennessean.com/story/ne...ouse-shooting-hero-stopped-shooter/540061002/

Armed or not, one needs to be smart, not give in to fear, and lucky.

Ummmm...yeah

I prefer to be armed.

I'm not sure if you saw the video but this guy started his rampage with shotgun blasts to the backs of people standing in the door way and then started shooting people at range with an assault rifle (I don't care if you like the words "assault rifle" or not).

But none of them had any defense and nothing short of a gun would have challenged him.

I also have a Short Barreled Rifle (SBR) but I wouldn't be carrying that daily like my trusty Kimber.

 

[PcePce]

The Social Media sites are 100% able to censor any level of filth they want to and the racists are powerless to stop them.

Censorship is fine as long as it's technically legal, huh?

You're awfully critical of 'hateful' speech, yet have no issue generalizing loosely affiliated members of a political party as racists. It's interesting that you seem to believe there's a difference between judging someone based upon their race, and judging someone based upon an ambiguous label, I.e. "conservative". Generalizing groups based upon superficial characteristics... What's the word for that?

You don't need to be armed to take out someone with a gun

If only soldiers since the 14th century knew they didn't need guns to beat the other guys with guns, they'd have never lost a war.

 

[mailpup]

Enough of the personal comments. If you can't make your arguments without them, you don't need to be in this thread.

 

[wiyosaya]

You don't need to be armed to take out someone with a gun. Take the guy who took down the shooter in the pancake house, for instance - https://www.tennessean.com/story/ne...ouse-shooting-hero-stopped-shooter/540061002/

Armed or not, one needs to be smart, not give in to fear, and lucky.

Ummmm...yeah

I prefer to be armed.

I'm not sure if you saw the video but this guy started his rampage with shotgun blasts to the backs of people standing in the door way and then started shooting people at range with an assault rifle (I don't care if you like the words "assault rifle" or not).

But none of them had any defense and nothing short of a gun would have challenged him.

I also have a Short Barreled Rifle (SBR) but I wouldn't be carrying that daily like my trusty Kimber.

And it turns out an UNARMED man here, too, was responsible for preventing more murders - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019...iled-hero-chasing-killer-190316101804481.html

Serious question for you: Suppose you are in a park like Yellowstone and you encounter a bear that charges at you. You have two things with you that might help: Your gun and a can of bear spray. Which do you choose?

 

[Knot Schure]

The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

No, but consistently excluding the political term for one racial category is not reporting the news, it’s crafting the news. That practice, exercised across media outlets, shares a kinship with crimes it misrepresents. You make yourself an accessory when you minimize these crimes in your reporting. So, FO&D on your ‘not mutually exclusive’ comment. That is some BS apologist crap.

I didn't know race was brought into this, I thought he was attacking an ideology (Islam), by shooting its adherents (Muslims), rather than people of a specific ethnicity (which has everything to do with race).

I'd expect you could be any colour in that Mosque, and you'd be dead now.

So I don't see where 'race' got into this...

 

[havok585]

Who cares what Pewdiepie thinks? He is not in any way responsible for this he just happens to be named by the lunatic. When a guy has 70m subs on YouTube some of them are gonna be mental there's nothing you can do about it. People got killed and everyone is arguing about meaningless ****, dumbasses.

, the only sane comment I see here.

 

[Malakai2k]

The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

No, but consistently excluding the political term for one racial category is not reporting the news, it’s crafting the news. That practice, exercised across media outlets, shares a kinship with crimes it misrepresents. You make yourself an accessory when you minimize these crimes in your reporting. So, FO&D on your ‘not mutually exclusive’ comment. That is some BS apologist crap.

I didn't know race was brought into this, I thought he was attacking an ideology (Islam), by shooting its adherents (Muslims), rather than people of a specific ethnicity (which has everything to do with race).

I'd expect you could be any colour in that Mosque, and you'd be dead now.

So I don't see where 'race' got into this...

You are 100% correct, there could be 20 or more races amongst the victims.

Who cares what Pewdiepie thinks? He is not in any way responsible for this he just happens to be named by the lunatic. When a guy has 70m subs on YouTube some of them are gonna be mental there's nothing you can do about it. People got killed and everyone is arguing about meaningless ****, dumbasses.

, the only sane comment I see here.

I was going to say the same thing. Clearly a lot of commenters here don’t know what Felix is like outside of what they read about him on trashy click driven websites.

 

[sushi board]

I'm sure that sweet advertising dollar will comfort him to sleep...

 

[Bp968]

You don't need to be armed to take out someone with a gun. Take the guy who took down the shooter in the pancake house, for instance - https://www.tennessean.com/story/ne...ouse-shooting-hero-stopped-shooter/540061002/

Armed or not, one needs to be smart, not give in to fear, and lucky.

Ummmm...yeah

I prefer to be armed.

I'm not sure if you saw the video but this guy started his rampage with shotgun blasts to the backs of people standing in the door way and then started shooting people at range with an assault rifle (I don't care if you like the words "assault rifle" or not).

But none of them had any defense and nothing short of a gun would have challenged him.

I also have a Short Barreled Rifle (SBR) but I wouldn't be carrying that daily like my trusty Kimber.

And it turns out an UNARMED man here, too, was responsible for preventing more murders - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019...iled-hero-chasing-killer-190316101804481.html

Serious question for you: Suppose you are in a park like Yellowstone and you encounter a bear that charges at you. You have two things with you that might help: Your gun and a can of bear spray. Which do you choose?

A rifle. Seriously, go check the park services pages about being back country in Alaska. You don't play games with browns.

But that's not really relevant, browns don't usually wear go pros and charge into your church shooting either. A gun is always a better choice against someone with a gun. Its why police carry them, its why militaries use them. Sure if your a fit young guy you probably think you can "win" against a gun after watching lots of YouTube takedown videos. Good luck with that. Hopefully you never need to find out how good you are at it.

If 1 out of 5 or 1 out of 10 of the people in that church had been armed he wouldn't have made it out of the first church alive. People shooting back does a great job of messing up someones aim and making the crazy guys idea of shooting up a church seem way less fun.

A year or two ago someone tried to shoot up a church in a southern US state and got himself popped by one of the parishioners who had an AR in his trunk.

 

[Knot Schure]

A rifle. Seriously, go check the park services pages about being back country in Alaska. You don't play games with browns.

But that's not really relevant, browns don't usually wear go pros and charge into your church shooting either. A gun is always a better choice against someone with a gun. Its why police carry them, its why militaries use them. Sure if your a fit young guy you probably think you can "win" against a gun after watching lots of YouTube takedown videos. Good luck with that. Hopefully you never need to find out how good you are at it.

If 1 out of 5 or 1 out of 10 of the people in that church had been armed he wouldn't have made it out of the first church alive. People shooting back does a great job of messing up someones aim and making the crazy guys idea of shooting up a church seem way less fun.

A year or two ago someone tried to shoot up a church in a southern US state and got himself popped by one of the parishioners who had an AR in his trunk.

Agree - you'll notice this is not happening down-town Texas.... I wonder why.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

A rifle. Seriously, go check the park services pages about being back country in Alaska. You don't play games with browns.

But that's not really relevant, browns don't usually wear go pros and charge into your church shooting either. A gun is always a better choice against someone with a gun. Its why police carry them, its why militaries use them. Sure if your a fit young guy you probably think you can "win" against a gun after watching lots of YouTube takedown videos. Good luck with that. Hopefully you never need to find out how good you are at it.

If 1 out of 5 or 1 out of 10 of the people in that church had been armed he wouldn't have made it out of the first church alive. People shooting back does a great job of messing up someones aim and making the crazy guys idea of shooting up a church seem way less fun.

A year or two ago someone tried to shoot up a church in a southern US state and got himself popped by one of the parishioners who had an AR in his trunk.

YOU ARE 100% right.

Similar to the Parkland shooting, there are a number of factors that non gun owners don't get:

#1 Portions of America are "wild". Wild animals exist to challenge people and theyy absolutely will kill those people if they are defenseless. I personally carry my Kimber .45 or Desert Eagle .50 when I go in woods with Bears of canines...but the AR-15 is probably the best possible choice due to the high capacity magazine and ease of use.

#2 School officials and church officials who are armed KNOW THE LAYOUT OF THE BUILDING and KNOW THE PEOPLE IN IT. If a mass murderer comes in, they have advantages that the murderer doesn't. They know where to hide. They can set ambushes.

#3 What you don't get when you're up against armed people is the unchallenged march of death that we saw in this video. Nuff Said.

 

[TempleOrion]

Surprise, surprise. Right wing 'Merkins response to massacre? Need moar gunz ROFLMAO...

 

[Claymor22]

EDITOR: Change this headline. This is not a ‘Shooter’. This is a Terrrorist. This is a mass murder committed to send a political message according to the perpetrators own statement. Use the correct language.

If Jacinda Ardern can call it as it is "A TERRORIST ATTACK" why cant you get it right in your article??