I think that's kind of the point of my rather tongue in cheek follow up below

We will have to keep an eye on this very dangerous part of our population in the future, we'll start by denying them access to the worst sorts of weapons so they can't be so dangerous in the future.

When you say "denying them access to the worst sorts of weapons", are you proposing that certain group can keep their rights of access while others cannot? How can you really apply that in an objective manner?

Or perhaps you mean in a broader sense remove them access to all kind of platforms to not spread hateful messages?

Those are dangerous discriminatory power to give, as today it might target your opponents and tomorrow yourself.

The reason I bring this up is not because I care about white supremacists per se, but because it's a tool to start applying "hate speaches" politics, where hate is itself very subjective and too often interpreted as "things I don't like to hear".

We are changing our gun laws here in NZ and likely doing it this week, although what that change looks like isn’t clear to me. https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/385081/christchurch...

these days the word slippery seems to be a code word for "do nothing".

This is because government does not have the right to punish people by association. It's an unfortunate consequence of freedom principles: Bad things can happen, and you can work to prevent bad things from happening, but you must be extremely judicious in how you do so or you fall into tyranny.

So very often the only thing to actually do is punish those responsible for bad things, sadly after the bad thing has already occurred.