I think it was ignored because the answer would have voided your point but, hey, let's agree to disagree.

You just can't help yourself, can you?

Which ones, and how many massacres?

Man about to do heinous thing predicts that heinous thing will prompt a rethink of how best to stop heinous things in future.

He's quite the Nostradamus.

re-posting what this scum bag said is giving him exactly what he wanted, its very poor taste just to try and make whatever screwed up trolling point you're trying to make

eta - why the groan?? do you think its ok to give mass murders the publicity they craved ????

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that people will call for tighter gun laws after a mass shooting. It also doesn't take a genius to foresee the consequences of those calls. Tarrant is far from a genius, therefore saw what everyone else can.

No special skillz there.

As for everybody playing right into his hands, he wasn't even bright enough to work out how to sow the seeds of his desired civil war without sacrificing himself.

I've been meaning to ask you if you had ever encountered the tosspot online?

No, it's useful to try and understand what drove this guy. Unlike Islamic terrorists, where we have a good idea what drives them, Brenton Tarrant's aims and motivations are not so straightforward. Little can be done to prevent repeat attacks unless you understand why they happened.

For what it's worth, I think this won't be the last attack we see like this, and I expect the next one to be a lot closer to home.

Does that make Anders Breivik the genius as he has influenced a similar attack?

You have an implicit assumption that these lone nutters all have the same motivation so more attacks can be stopped.
I am not sure that trying to understand the motivation of a lone nutter is either healthy or sensible?

That's because you assume that:

a) he's a nutter
b) he's a lone nutter

Read what he wrote and you'll understand more.

He killed 50 people, and you think it's debatable that he's a nutter?

Bingo.

Depends on what you define as a "nutter". I certainly don't think he was psychotic or had mental health issues.

So he was of sound mind, by your view?

From what I've read, yes.

Just come out and say you agree with his manifesto. Defending a man who massacred 50 people as "sound of mind" removes all credibility from your opinions on the matter, otherwise.

Saying someone is of sound mind is not defending them.

Do you think Islamic terrorists are of sound mind?

No, obviously not. There can be no rational (i.e. needing a sound mind) excuse to massacre people.

I think they think they are.

Spot on. If believing in an invisible Sky Fairy who controls their every move wasn't enough, deciding the best course of action is to kill themselves (often) and take a lot of people with them strikes me as "a bit silly".

People rarely work entirely alone. They are influenced by ideas, ideology. My guess is that the NZ shooter was influenced by ideas of white supremacy and a perception of being cast aside in favor of brown people. Simplification? Perhaps, i‘ve not read his meanderings, and I doubt I will.

His radicalization is probably not much different from that of an isis sympathizer, just replace radical Islam with radical white supremacist/racist.

I think it‘s a mistake to characterize these shooters as lone wolves. They are joined in their belief about the decline of white culture. They share ideologies. They do seem to operate in society as isolated individuals.

However, I wonder that easily radicalized people are not so different from each other.