The killer also said that he hated conservatives and was not one, and also was disparaging of blacks, but when he sarcastically claimed that black conservative Candace Owens was one of his inspirations, the left failed to see that he was spoofing and being provocative, and blamed her for the attack as well.
The killer certainly hated Muslims, but according to the manifesto he published online, he hated a lot more, and killing Muslims was not his only motive.
He claims to be an “eco-fascist,” is a huge believer in “global warming,” warns of the dangers of “overpopulation,” and says that communist China is his “ideal state.” He intentionally chose his weapons for the purpose of causing disruption in the United States, hoping to provoke politicians to call for confiscating weapons, thus leading to armed resistance and a civil war; and it goes one step further – he wanted that civil war in order to divide America racially and regionally, hoping that it so weakens our nation as to prevent the US from defending its interests.
A quick review of his manifesto establishes that the man is unstable, or worse, and was very likely to take violent action. Yet, as far as is known, he had not been arrested, had no police record, and legally purchased all five weapons he used – although he illegally modified all five.
The killer certainly was radicalized, but he also was very much a member of the “internet generation,” and actually live-streamed on social media his attack on the mosques.
We do a disservice when we fail to take action to prevent criminal behavior, but we also do a disservice when we punish people who had nothing to do with a crime, and we do a grave disservice when authorities take away rights from innocent people because somehow governments failed to take steps to prevent a horrific mass murder.
Recently, 120 Christians were murdered in Nigeria, killed by radical Muslims. Hundreds of other adherents of various religions are killed every year by violent radical proponents of some other religion. Most of them take place in the “Third World” and thus are largely ignored. When one takes place in New Zealand or Norway or the UK or America or Canada or Australia or France or Germany or some other western country, the world takes notice and leftish politicians first blame their political opponents and then feel compelled to make an effort to “do something.”
That something almost always has to do with banning guns, but is has been well established that many of the mass murders have been intercepted or diverted or halted by “a good guy with a gun,” and apparently this also applies to the New Zealand massacre. Forty-two people were murdered at the Al Noor mosque, the first mosque attacked by the killer. At that mosque he met no resistance, but at the second mosque, at Linwood, only seven were murdered. One man from the mosque, Abdul Aziz, picked up a credit card machine, threw it at the shooter, thus drawing his fire, then picked up a shotgun that the killer had used but discarded once it was empty. Abdul Aziz screamed at him, and the shooter dropped his weapon and ran to his car, then entered it and was in the driver’s seat. Aziz followed him, threw the shotgun through the window of the car, and then the shooter cursed him and drove away. Aziz, with the empty shotgun, chased him down the street. The killer was captured by police, and the Imam of the Linwood mosque credits Aziz for halting the attack and thus saving lives.
This is a pattern that has been repeated at many of the sites of mass shootings – very frequently the presence of a weapon in the hands of an intended victim or a bystander or a law enforcement officer (as in this case, even an empty weapon) stops the attack. Most of these mass killers are not prepared for resistance. They have chosen “soft targets” and do not expect to be fired on or confronted by someone with a weapon.
So, although the world’s political leaders insinuate that firearms or gun rights organizations or the owners of firearms are to blame for these attacks, perhaps more attacks would be prevented or curtailed if more people legally were carrying firearms and had the knowledge and ability to use them in self-defense. There are millions of documented cases in which firearms have been used in self-defense. Politicians should understand that by disarming the populace, they make it much easier for criminals to commit their crimes. If they worked as hard to get criminals or violent radicals off the streets as they work to prevent the legal ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens, there would be fewer crimes and fewer victims.