Ex-Russian soldier dies of suicide after standoff in Christchurch (over an SKS) - Sensationalist Headlines

Don't throw stones from a glass house, then. Also you clearly don't care about arguing in any honest faith with people here, the first thing you did in this thread was make an inane psuedo-argument that doesn't make any sense and then immediately turned to shitting on grenadiac the first chance you got. Why are you even pretending like you give a shit about having a discussion? It's obvious that you dont. "Rating spam", like it's not possible that people think you're saying is asinine and it has to be a bandwagon, how pompous are you?

Point out, in this thread, where the fuck I did these things. ...Which nobody here has properly debunked nor addressed. Are you fucking joking here? That's literally gaslighting. Grenadiac was the one who barged in the thread to discredit me and immediately proceeded to strawman my point when I asked him to make more meaningful contributions to the discussion. But hey, if you consider defending myself against his accusations and deformation of my arguments to be "shitting on him", you do you. Says the person whose only contribution to the thread is calling me a giant asshole. Maybe if you spent less effort on insisting that I "don't want to have an actual discussion" and insulting me, and more on actually addressing my points, then we'd be having a proper discussion. Do you expect the people who showered Peachy with dumb ratings for making a completely reasonable point, or who rated EcksDee's seemingly sensible point the same way without even bothering to respond, to put proper thought into the ratings they give? It's pretty clear at this point that those ratings don't reflect the quality of the argument they're applied to, but rather whether the poster who rates agrees with the underlying opinion. Now, answer the question:

People: We should not tolerate or give platform to Nazis attempting to spread their horrible ideology. Alt-right: So much for the “tolerant left.” Gun owners: We should not be subjected to unfair laws which only serve to disenfranchise us while demonstrably having little to no effect on gun violence or public safety. You: So much for the “law abiding gun owners”. Guess he shouldn’t have practiced noncompliance if he didn’t want to be threatened at gun point and have gas grenades shot at them by the authorities. Everyone knows having a rifle with certain external features or which holds more than the arbitrary amount of rounds permitted by the crown makes you an imminent threat to society! Guess those “uppity negros” shouldn’t have armed themselves or practiced noncompliance during the civil rights movement if they didn’t want to get beaten and killed by the authorities. After all, politicians of the era were successfully able to argue that “blacks with guns are a legitimate threat to society”. That boot must taste awfully fuckin’ good when not just you, but several other people in this thread are so eager to justify these actions. Everyone is so quick to throw out the “oh he was just crazy” excuse as if it’s an established fact (it’s not) which somehow exonerates the piss poor handling of the situation by everyone involved. Anything to avoid acknowledging the possibility that maybe... JUST MAYBE, the response was excessive and this guy had a panic attack resulting in his death. This wasn’t in America where people are expected to know that law enforcement’s initial response is to kick their shit in, shoot the dog, or light them the fuck up at the first sign of noncompliance. Goddamn. I’ll keep it short. You do this thing where you say a lot without actually saying anything useful and think it makes you look knowledgeable/clever. No one’s buying it because you do it all the time and quite frankly it’s fucking annoying. Drop the act already, you’re not fooling anyone.

Right, the "your posts are beneath me so they don't even deserve a response" tactic. Classy. You do this thing where you keep attacking the form of my post while ignoring the content (or pretending there is none). If you're not interested in actual discussion and would rather keep attacking me directly every time I bring an issue up than addressing it (which, you know, should be easy enough to do if you think my points are so devoid of substance, yet you haven't done once in this thread) then I don't see why I would bother trying to argue with you.

Last time I actually tried to engage with you on a thread, you did the exact thing you’re accusing me of now.

Uh, no? I don't recall any of that. What even is your point anyway? I don't think I have any lesson to learn from someone who got all up the throat of a moderately pro-gun poster for saying something completely uncontroversial, then went on to whine about "those mean anti-gun posters' drive-by shitposting making me think you were one of them" after realising he fucked up. Like for fuck's sake I'm the only one here who's been trying to have a proper argument in this thread. Catbarf tried to actually refute my point but immediately dropped it after I pointed out a double standard in his reasoning. Everyone else so far has either directly insulted me or made gross strawmen of my point. You're not in any position to complain, I'm not the one making the drive-by shitposts here. Are you going to keep whining about my posts being "too long" and projecting intentions on me to portray me as some kind of stereotypical bad guy, or will you be willing to engage in honest discourse for once? Who the fuck am I kidding, really.

Alright I skimmed through this thread can I get tl;dr of what your argument is? So far the most salient and level headed statements on this article I've seen are form Grenadiac.

Ok first let's address this. My post: Your post: Congratulations you just ignored literally everything else I said about why the system doesn't work just to nitpick about me giving an example of why "they can just smuggle assault weapons across states" isn't a valid excuse for state implemented assault weapons bans failing. Then your attempt to hold me to a higher standard by dismissing all arguments that aren't part of a statistical study in the following exchange: Take note the part where I attempt to suggest some changes to would actually do something to address the issues, which you refuse to acknowledge in favor of: So yeah I'm just going to say it outright, not as ad-hominem but as an objective observation of your responses to me specifically. You are a massive fucking hypocrite. You've denied the obvious causes of our gun crime problems, stonewalled previous attempts to talk about solutions, and twisted my words into the most literal base definition to adjust their meaning to your liking such as: In this case being so petty as to point this out, when a 2 year old could figure out I was OBVIOUSLY not referring to every single post you've ever made in the thread. First post is: Seems like a sound argument, you really got me there bucko. 👌 I'm not even going to bother going further into what you've contributed to this dumpster fire of a thread so far because I'd be here all day and there is nothing to gain by even humoring your dishonest arguments. Now is this the part where you're supposed to copy the format of my post in your next response?

That the posters here who claim that NZ's gun control laws are to blame for this man's death (not those who agree that the police should have indeed done something about the situation but should have handled it better, that's not who my point is about*) are making the same logical mistakes as those who pin mass shootings on gun ownership. It's really not a complex, out-there point at all. Yet so far it's only been either strawmanned by people like Grenadiac who shifted the conversation to unrelated concerns* or outright ignored by people like AlbertWesker here who'd rather attack me directly than even consider discussing the matter at hand.

Why did you leave an asterisk and then not follow up on it with a note explaining the asterisk Asterisks without followup notes are the most suspicious kinds.

"shifted the conversation to unrelated concerns*" -> Those concerns being "the police should have indeed done something about the situation but should have handled it better" Sorry for being unclear.

You never stated once in that thread about what measures you support and why. In fact the only thing you’ve done as far as I can tell on this subject since then is concern troll without stating anything about what you think should be done. In my case, you only claimed to agree with the gist of what I was trying to say the ENTIRE TIME once there was absolutely nowhere left for you to question. Links in case anyone is interested: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/192946 https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf Maybe you didn’t insult me directly, but the “triple distilled” concern trolling was quite obviously an attempt by you to avoid acknowledging any of the facts or statistics many of us have laid out several times in the context of pointing out where specific arguments against guns fall short or are outright false. Statistics in and of itself may not give the total picture, but whenever someone says something ignorant like “no one should have an assault rifle (when they’re actually talking about “assault weapons”), we can point to the pathetically low number of assault weapons being used in gun violence as evidence of an assault weapons ban not being effective or justified. You can’t get rid of gun violence by targeting something which statistically was never really a problem to begin with. But apparently you knew that already, despite repeatedly questioning practically every single point brought up to confirm this.

I didn't say anything on the subject before being prompted to because I didn't see the need to. My issue never was about what proposed policies would be efficient. It was about how statistical evidence was used in the general context of gun debates. Not talking about something that I don't even have an issue with in the first place is not "concern trolling". If I said something along the lines of "your policies are shit because of the way you use stats" then yeah, that would be concern trolling. But the only aim of my argument was to ensure that people make proper, rational use of available evidence when furthering their point. I don't think that's something you'd disagree with. I don't think it's reasonable on your part to claim that I "quite obviously" had any given intent behind my posts, considering you've been shown in this thread to have severely misinterpreted my stances on several occasions. If you go back to your quotes you'll realize that this has nothing to do with the actual context of the issue I brought up. My first post is in response to your argument that states having varying levels of gun violence despite being neighbors meant that border permeability plays no role in the efficiency of a state-wide set of gun laws. My response was simply meant to highlight that this was simplistic reasoning, that doesn't account for the complexity of gun crime, and that you should back up your point with more solid evidence. I never said anything that went against assault weapons being statistically insignificant in terms of crime, or even mention assault weapon bans at all. And for good reason: I think they're stupid, and that proper gun laws should consider all firearms on an equal footing rather than try to ban accessories or some vague subset like "assault weapons" which doesn't really mean anything. Heck, I've actually already addressed all this in the very thread you're mentioning: If there's something about that explanation of my point that wasn't clear enough for you, you should have asked for further clarification then rather than keep falsely assuming my stance like you're apparently still doing a month later. Still, better late than never.

This was a sad event, seemingly stemming from overzealous law enforcement seeking to look like they're making an impact and taking things seriously ending in a man's death. The attempts to slander him in order to justify this event, by twisting the narrative to make him seem like a shooter in waiting is absurd and embarrassing, and I find it depressing that people want to use it score political points. These are the kinds of tactics I expect from Fox News, not posters on this forum.

But what I don't get is, what political agenda does it serve to claim that this person could have been dangerous? Like, what political conclusions could you infer from the belief that the police behaved correctly in this instance, however unfounded it may be? What actual policies could you support with that claim? I don't personally think I have sufficient information right now to determine whether police acted in the most responsible way possible given the info they had access to, so I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but it seems to me that the implications of either conclusion wouldn't lead to relevant legislative proposals. At most, the persons in charge will face legal consequences and the police forces will change their M.O. accordingly in similar situations.

Troy Dubovskiy supported alleged Christchurch gunman, was a 'sig.. Troy Dubovskiy supported alleged Christchurch gunman, was a 'significant threat' "On Wednesday, police confirmed Troy Dubovskiy supported the Christchurch terror attack and had violent extremist content at his house, as well as firearms and ammunition. Dubovskiy initially came to police attention due to some concerning emails he sent, which included reference to the Christchurch terror attacks, Canterbury District Commander Superintendent John Price said. Search warrants were executed on three properties that Dubovskiy lived at or had access to. A number of items of concern were located at these properties including firearms, ammunition and violent extremist content."

So the raid wasn't over the airsoft gun? This paints a much clearer picture and seriously changes the game.

Ex-military who acts like the war never ended and supports a recent mass killing where a guy was 'defending his homeland' has his home raided and kills himself after entering standoff with officers over an illegal automatic weapon This couldn't be more cut and dry if it were jerky

Lemme give you a little crash course on how really bad anxiety and PTSD work (given the mans statements and former occupation it is not a stretch to think that he had some form of it). Lets say you're making breakfast in the morning and a mug of coffee falls on the tile floor behind you. If your PTSD is triggered by unexpected noise your heart is going to leap out of your chest and your response will probably range from what I have coined "startled deer syndrome" where you freeze up and go tense, to grabbing a knife and turning around without realizing what you're doing. Once you eventually turn around and see its just a mug that fell you'll relax a little but your chest probably hurts and your body has been snapped into fight or flight mode and you cant turn it off. That means that when your neighbors car backfires a few minutes later you're suddenly back in startled deer mode and its worse this time. A few minutes later a fuckin fork or something stupid falls down and you're stuck in a full blown panic attack, and potentially suicidal. What im saying here is that PTSD is this vicious cy le once it starts acting up of you getting progressively more anxious/paranoid/angry/scared and each thing that makes it worse makes it harder to get out of and easier to make worse. Knowing this its easy to see how someone who has it bad can go from nothing to suicidal in the breadth of a few minutes. Furthermore if a car backfire or a mug can trigger PTSD in some people I'd wager a SWAT team raiding your bouse and pelting you with gas grenades is going to fuck you up pretty damned badly. The NZ police didnt "force him to kill himself", what they did was do everything they could to make him feel like it was the only option he had. I dont know if I would have reacted any better than this man did under those circumstances. Also Im fairly certain that no one is saying that he "literally had no option" thats almost as dumb of a strawman as "im arguing against people who are arguing that NZ gun laws killed this man" when I dont believe anyone has stated that. It honestly seems like you're willfully over interpretating peoples arguments and debating in bad faith.

Seems like you're a little late to the party, mate. Besides, if you had actually read the thread properly you'd know that my point has nothing to do with whether the way the police intervened was justified. It's about pointing out that pro-gun posters are trying to use this event as an anti-gun-law argument. And when there are posters that say this verbatim: You can't possibly claim that I'm "willfully over interpreting people's arguments" without being disingenuous yourself.

An unnecessary death that could have been avoided, how fucking dare they harass someone over a few FB pics featuring firearms. The media and the police both deserve cashiering.

You might want to read up. Specifically this post.

Jesus, perhaps I stand corrected on some accounts - but the idea that this was started from someone posing with a gun on FB is still concerning.

Except it wasn't, the quote literally says that he came to the attention of the Police because of 'concerning e-mails' which referenced the Christchurch attack.

Considering the mere act of sharing the shooting video is deemed a crime worthy of a jail sentence I'm not sure how to take that until/if they release more concrete statements as to what it and the "extremist content" was. Sounds like thinly veiled excuses for a botched raid.

I think this thread shows that you shouldn't make hasty conclusions.

From everything reported in the original article, I would not take back anything I claimed and I agree with the sentiment in the thread. There were no hasty conclusion to be made, only opinions based on what was reported.

My question is why the smoke and mirrors to begin with? If the raid was really because they knew ahead of time he had actual illegal firearms and was a terror sympathizer, that’d be fair game. Why state that it was over an airsoft gun owned by his son?

If we look at the original article we can see that the police didn't actually make that claim themselves. Dubovskiy's son did: Dubovskiy's 16-year-old son, who Stuff has decided not to name, said police searched the homes of his father, mother and grandparents after someone reported a photo the teen made his profile picture on Facebook five days ago.

Right on - I still stand by my initial statements in the context of what we knew at the time, but clearly new information has changed the dynamic. Trying to get this dude under a lamp makes sense.