Bondi beach (Sydney) terrorism shooting

[James R]

My point is that US culture is such that what will work in the UK or Australia won't work here.

You'll never know if you never try.

That's what you don't get.

I think we all get it that, in the current political climate in the United States, gun control isn't going to happen. It's not hard to work that out.

The law wouldn't get passed, if it did the reactions and compliance would be the same.

When strict gun laws were passed in Australia in 1996, there were plenty of gun lovers who were reluctant to hand in their newly-illegal guns. Nevertheless, in the end, a lot of the opponents to the laws ended up doing just that.

Some of the people want tougher laws after every shooting but nothing ever changes because not enough of them want it. That's my point.

It's not really about "people". It's about who's in government and who is most effective at lobbying government, and about how corrupt the government of the day is.

I suspect that polls of Americans in general would be likely to show that most Americans would like to see better gun control. Are you aware of any polls on the question?

It won't happen in the near future, of course, because the government is currently over half full of people who, like Charlie Kirk, are more than willing to let children be shot rather than taking reasonable steps to reduce the regularity with which that occurs.

The main issue is just the culture, existing gun base and who might give up their guns and who wouldn't. The criminals wouldn't and in reality, not many other people would either.

Of course the criminals won't give up their guns. But if the general supply of guns is reduced, it becomes harder for would-be gun-totin' criminals to get a hold of one in the first place - or to get a hold of the ones that are usually used for mass shootings.

The other problem, as you've seen even on here, is that after a mass shooting the emotional response is to press for things that feel good but wouldn't actually do anything about the next mass shooting.

That wasn't the case following the Port Arthur shooting in Australia in 1996. Nor has it been the case following the recent Bondi beach shooting. The government has already announced a number of new measures that will very likely further reduce the incidence of mass shootings in Australia, just like the measures that were introduced in 1996 greatly reduced the incidence of mass shootings between then and now.

They may do something else (reduce suicides...maybe?) but the solutions rarely would do what they are supposed to address so the hunters and more gun minded people just don't trust the politicians who push for that stuff.

You think it's worth keeping the gun suicide rate up, to keep the hunters and "more gun minded people" happy, then, do you?

It's complicated

Not really. It sounds to me like you're conflicted, and perhaps you are not being honest with us about why you like guns so much.

It's like I mentioned regarding freedom of speech in the UK and Covid controls in Australia....that's just not happening here either.

Changing your Constitution is difficult. You are stuck with your First Amendment for the moment, which certainly has its plus side, but also its down side. As for the Second, it's almost all down side; the up side is mostly theoretical and a case of wishful thinking.

 

[James R]

How low would productivity have to get in the UK before you would move?

Why do you keep trying to change the topic?

I understand that you care more about The Economy than you do about other people, but do you have to try to divert every topic onto yet another discussion of your precious Economy?

 

[Pinball1970]

This is quite detailed from the BBC.

Australia was seen as a world leader in gun control - Bondi has exposed a more complicated reality - BBC News

It introduced stricter gun laws after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, but some say they now need to be tightened further.

www.bbc.com

 

[Seattle]

Hopefully you guys will keep trying, obviously some of the population do want tighter gun control.
You may need a few more Columbine and Sandy Hooks before it happens.

Or less of them.

 

[Seattle]

Is that an absolute, or just a comment as to current levels of mass-shootings being insufficient for you to move? If the former, you're saying the US could be experiencing 1,000,000 mass-shootings a year, and you would not move? If the latter, the question was how many mass-shootings, not simply whether the current was beyond that level.

Yes, I'm talking hypothetically - as a thought experiment, if you will - where an absolute "I'm not moving" would say that there is no amount of gun-violence such that you would move to avoid it. Is that your position? You would not move even if roving armed gangs were shooting up your, and every other, neighbourhood, for example?

It would depend on the government's actions, not productivity per se.
Productivity is a very weak analogy to gun violence as motive and role in human decision-making. It's government action in response to productivity that would be the motive, not productivity itself. I mean, even in the US you don't get robbed in the streets by someone wielding their productivity figures, right?
So maybe you want to come up with a more meaningful analogy? Or, better yet, drop it entirely as it is only serving to distract and derail.

I'm not OCD, maybe if you were able to drop that trait, it wouldn't derail as well? What do you think? I think it's a good analogy. I have never seen a gun fired in public or heard one and I have never seen a gun in public (not fired) so why would I be thinking of moving for that reason?

Lack of productivity ruins more lives than guns. Just look at much of the north of England and how much better lives would be with more economic productivity. Most people here aren't shot at, a victim of mass shootings or anything close to that. Mental health is the major problem with even those cases but here we are talking about guns and moving.

 

[Pinball1970]

You know my views on Islam and this attack was carried out by Muslims (yes they are Muslims) on innocent civilians, specifically Jews.
I think this was religiously and politically motivated, we will see.

However, white supremacism terrorism should get a mention here.
Opposite ends of the same destructive spectrum.

Christchurch mosque shootings - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Seattle]

Why do you keep trying to change the topic?

I understand that you care more about The Economy than you do about other people, but do you have to try to divert every topic onto yet another discussion of your precious Economy?

Everything is related to the economy. Shooting isn't just about guns, it's about mental health, it's about the economy as well. Why are you so petty and one sided on this issue? I don't "love" guns and like seeing people shot and all the rest of your nonsense.

When you say "why don't we try?" Who is "we". "We" can try and it doesn't pass so "we" can't try. The more socialized countries do seem to think that the economy is somehow separate from reality. It's not.

Regarding guns and Australia. It seems that you have about as many guns now as before the mass shooting in the 90's or whenever it was so guns weren't really "reduced" for long and yet there was little shooting. Maybe Australia just isn't the US? What do you think?

I'm not a hunter, yet I can empathize with others (as you questioned the other day), I don't live on a farm in a rural area with police protection far away but I can understand the desire for a gun in that case. Why are you so one-sided on most subjects?

 

[Sarkus]

I'm not OCD, maybe if you were able to drop that trait, it wouldn't derail as well? What do you think?

???

I think it's a good analogy. I have never seen a gun fired in public or heard one and I have never seen a gun in public (not fired) so why would I be thinking of moving for that reason?

Again, you're simply failing to engage with the hypothetical question with just more obfuscation. Whatever.

Lack of productivity ruins more lives than guns. Just look at much of the north of England and how much better lives would be with more economic productivity.

They wouldn't be that much better, because we have a welfare system that is reasonably good at levelling matters. The north is, in many ways, more affordable than the south. Certainly more affordable than London. As to whether someone is better off or not in the north would depend on what they want from life, and what they do. Much like elsewhere. And whether increased productivity would help would depend very much on who gets the benefits of that productivity increase. If it's just a case of people working harder for the same pay, standards don't increase for any but the owners/shareholders.
I also think you have a rather odd view of the north of England. Maybe you should go there. Sure, there are some not so pleasant areas, just as there are of any significant conurbation.

Most people here aren't shot at, a victim of mass shootings or anything close to that. Mental health is the major problem with even those cases but here we are talking about guns and moving.

Yet you can't escape the fact that lower gun ownership correlates to lower threat to life from shootings, mass or otherwise. The current line of discussion is trying to see where your tipping point is, where it goes from your current apathy to actually thinking it a problem. But, look, you don't want to engage with that. So, sure, whatever.

 

[James R]

You know my views on Islam and this attack was carried out by Muslims (yes they are Muslims) on innocent civilians, specifically Jews.
I think this was religiously and politically motivated, we will see.

A new police statement came out today with some more information on the Bondi shooters.

The statement says that the shooters made a video in which they posed with their guns in front of an Islamic State flag and tried to justify their killing of innocent people on the grounds that they really don't like Israel or Jews.

Apparently, the gunmen also visited the scene of the shooting a couple of days before the shooting itself, presumably for planning purposes.

Another video has come to light showing the two men "training" with their rifles in a rural location in New South Wales.

It seems fairly clear that these men were inspired to commit their crimes by Islamic State propaganda and ideology.

 

[James R]

Seattle:

Everything is related to the economy.

Has anybody ever told you that you have a fixation?

Shooting isn't just about guns, it's about mental health, it's about the economy as well.

I hear that flowers only exist because of the economy, too. It's all just so interesting, isn't it?

Why are you so petty and one sided on this issue?

Which issue am I petty and one-sided on?

Look, I don't know about you, but I don't like seeing innocent people killed by nutjobs with guns.

Do you have a problem with that?

I don't "love" guns and like seeing people shot and all the rest of your nonsense.

You're just neutral on the matter of people being shot and the rest of my nonsense.

When you say "why don't we try?" Who is "we".

Presumably, you Americans.

The more socialized countries do seem to think that the economy is somehow separate from reality. It's not.

Are we to take from this that you believe socialism is bad, mmkay?

Regarding guns and Australia. It seems that you have about as many guns now as before the mass shooting in the 90's...

More, apparently. Not as many mass shootings, though.

... or whenever it was so guns weren't really "reduced" for long and yet there was little shooting.

The point wasn't to "reduce" the guns. The point was to make mass shootings less common. Eyes on the ball.

Maybe Australia just isn't the US? What do you think?

I agree that Australia isn't the US. It looks like you're avoiding the issue, still.

I'm not a hunter, yet I can empathize with others (as you questioned the other day), I don't live on a farm in a rural area with police protection far away but I can understand the desire for a gun in that case.

It's largely a fantasy that guns improve one's "personal security".

In Australia, under the current law, there are only four (or is it five) valid reasons for holding a gun licence. The government quite deliberately does not recognise "self-defence" as one of those valid reasons.

Why are you so one-sided on most subjects?

I'm not. I'm a "let's hear from all sides and decide who makes the best arguments" kind of guy on most issues.

If you've made some questionable choices that have landed you on the opposite side of the fence to me, that's on you, not me.

 

[Seattle]

Seattle:

Has anybody ever told you that you have a fixation?

I hear that flowers only exist because of the economy, too. It's all just so interesting, isn't it?

Which issue am I petty and one-sided on?

Look, I don't know about you, but I don't like seeing innocent people killed by nutjobs with guns.

Do you have a problem with that?

You're just neutral on the matter of people being shot and the rest of my nonsense.

Presumably, you Americans.

We are presumable to take from this that socialism is bad, mmkay?

More, apparently. Not as many mass shootings, though.

The point wasn't to "reduce" the guns. The point was to make mass shootings less common. Eyes on the ball.

I agree that Australia isn't the US. It looks like you're avoiding the issue, still.

It's largely a fantasy that guns improve one's "personal security".

In Australia, under the current law, there are only four (or is it five) valid reasons for holding a gun licence. The government quite deliberately does not recognise "self-defence" as one of those valid reasons.

I'm not. I'm a "let's hear from all sides and decide who makes the best arguments" kind of guy on most issues.

If you've made some questionable choices that have landed you on the opposite side of the fence to me, that's on you, not me.

I think you may be fixated on the US. What do you think?

Let's see, you don't like nut jobs but you focus on guns instead and you want to reduce guns but didn't reduce them. OK, it's all perfectly clear.

I think it may be a fantasy that reducing guns, that you didn't reduce, has anything to do with shootings. Maybe nut jobs are the problem? Let's reduce them? There seems to be a bit of fantasy down under, wouldn't you agree?

 

[James R]

I think you may be fixated on the US. What do you think?

I have many varied interests. I take an interest in world affairs. It is fair of you to deduce that I am interested in the US. Since a lot of our members on sciforums are Americans, and a lot of Americans are parochial, it should not be that surprising to you that I often find myself discussing American matters here.

So, interested, yes. Fixated, not especially. Thanks for asking me what I think.

I think you might be defensive about your precious guns in the US. What do you think?

Let's see, you don't like nut jobs but you focus on guns instead and you want to reduce guns but didn't reduce them.

You're rambling.

I think it may be a fantasy that reducing guns, that you didn't reduce, has anything to do with shootings.

Are you talking about me, personally, here, or Australia, or something else?

What did I just tell you in post #190? Did you read that post at all?

Maybe nut jobs are the problem?

Nut jobs with guns are a problem, certainly. A bigger problem than nut jobs without guns.

Let's reduce them?

A worthy aim.

There seems to be a bit of fantasy down under, wouldn't you agree?

Are you trying to insult an entire nation, now? Why?

 

[TheVat]

Because innuendo and evasion is less mentally taxing than a reasoned argument.

 

[Pinball1970]

Let's see, you don't like nut jobs but you focus on guns instead and you want to reduce guns but didn't reduce them. OK, it's all perfectly clear.

Come on man don't be a dick you're smarter than that, 16 people have been murdered including a ten year old girl, this not the time to score points.
This was an Islamic terrorist attack and not related to gun crime. If those guys could not get their hands of guns they would have used knives like in London and Manchester, a vehicle like Berlin, London and Nice, bombs like the MEN arena, 7/7 and others or hijack a plane and fly it into a fucking building.

The gun control laws that were brought in after Port Arthur did not stop this, just as the 1988 laws in Hungerford did not stop Dunblane BUT, those measures have been a success. We need to do more not less AND stop for a moment and see what the real issue in this case was, not guns, not immigrants, not loners or lunatics it is the religion of Islam.

 

[Pinball1970]

This is the issue.

Statement from the 2005 London bomber that he left.

"I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our drive and motivation doesn't come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God and following the footsteps of the final prophet messenger. Your democratically-elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people, we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation."

 

[parmalee]

It's largely a fantasy that guns improve one's "personal security".

In Australia, under the current law, there are only four (or is it five) valid reasons for holding a gun licence. The government quite deliberately does not recognise "self-defence" as one of those valid reasons.

I'd say it's almost entirely a fantasy. There is very little data out there on the successful use of guns in self defense or defense of others, and what little there is tends to come from rather biased sources, i.e., pro-gun groups. And even they tend to proffer very small numbers here, as the most minimal investigation into their data tends to reveal a lot of rather dubious scenarios which can be interpreted in any number of ways.

I'm not even going to link any of these "studies" simply because their numbers are all over the place.

 

[Pinball1970]

JUST as I am posting the Guardian posts this.

The bombs did not detonate, so no, guns not the issue.

Police allege Bondi shooters had ‘tennis ball bomb’ and made IS-inspired video manifesto, court documents reveal

Documents released Monday outline allegations against Naveed Akram and his father Sajid over the 14 December attack

www.theguardian.com

 

[Pinball1970]

From Osama BL 1998

"The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God.""

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

There are around 50 muslim majority countries in the world. Send all the muslims in other countries to these and problems with them pretty much end.

 

[parmalee]

There are around 50 muslim majority countries in the world. Send all the muslims in other countries to these and problems with them pretty much end.

The overwhelming majority, some 75 to 80 percent, of terroristic actions in the US are undertaken by rightwing extremists--predominantly Christian oriented extremists. Islamic terrorism in the US is barely a drop in the bucket.