[Rapzid]

It's amazing to me how political this is and how oblivious to that fact a large portion of the NZ population is.

This horrible act happened on the current governments watch. I've seen more outrage and effort from the government on the spreading of the video and manifesto than introspection into how this slipped through in the first place. I suppose in a country where carrying a weapon for the purpose of self defense is considered a crime, something this terrible shattering the illusion of nanny government protecting you requires a whole lot of deflection and ultra maneuvers to secure the next election cycle.

New Zealand's knee has jerked so hard I'm feeling it in my groin 8k miles away.

[roca]

NZers have observed the USA's experiment with reducing violent crime by flooding the nation with guns, and there is very strong support across the political spectrum for trying something else: restricting access to the most dangerous guns, and deplatforming murder advocates. It is not some authoritarian ploy.

[eadmund]

> It is not some authoritarian ploy.

Regardless of whether you think it's a good idea or not, restricting access to guns and free speech is an authoritarian play: it's using the authority of the State to restrict certain liberties in the intent of doing good.

[ionised]

> it's using the authority of the State to restrict certain liberties in the intent of doing good.

That's called civilisation.

And the US doesn't have absolute free speech. It never did.

Just like other democracies, it has restrictions on speech for various reasons, some good and some bad. It's about where an individual country draws their line on the spectrum:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

Some US states have obscenity laws that other developed democracies don't. Obscenity laws. Just think about how insane that is as a concept.

[roca]

All laws "use the authority of the State to restrict certain liberties in the intent of doing good".

[tathougies]

Sure, all law is an exercise of authority, and hence authoritarianism. The commenter was merely calling out that... no matter how you dice it... a new law is always authoritarian, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Saying 'this law is not authoritarian' is always a contradiction.

[Rapzid]

Most of the conversation here is around free speech and censorship. I don't believe in government, in general, limiting the flow of information through censorship and 14 year prison sentences.

As to the USA.. Well, I think it's important to consider that the USA is about 68 times the population of NZ. 68 New Zealands, think about that. Some of those New Zealands are quite safe even relative to other countries, and others are not. Firearm homicide rates, along with other crime rates, fluctuate wildly by region. And yet all those regions have the 1st and 2nd amendment.

IMHO, as a NZ resident, NZ is definitely safer and nicer than the bad parts of the US. However, I do not believe it has too much to do with its loose free speech protections and firearm restrictions. New Zealand is probably sturdy enough to have stronger free speech and personal liberty protections while being as safe or safer as the safest regions in the USA..

[CompanionCuuube]

The "restricting access to the most dangerous guns" is a buzzword/phrase whose categorization expands the more you apply it.