Bondi beach (Sydney) terrorism shooting

Wizard of Whatever said:
Not enough capital punishment and civilian armament.
Click to expand...
Proven not to work. Intelligence now is the only way to find these cells and act before they walk into a tube station, a bus, a sports venue, a music arena, a hotel, a Christmas market, a beach, the street etc and try to kill as many people as possible.
 
Pinball1970 said:
Is this the first mass shooting since Port Arthur?
Click to expand...
No.

Bear in mind that a mass shooting is firearm-related violence with at least four casualties (which need not be deaths).

In terms of deaths, this is certainly the worst shooting since the Port Arthur shootings in 1996.

In October this year, a man opened fire from a restaurant rooftop onto passing vehicles, including police vehicles, injuring 17 people, before being arrested. Paramedics treated 16 people at the scene for minor injuries, one man underwent surgery for gunshot wounds to his chest and neck and the alleged gunman also sustained minor injuries.

The most recent one before that was back in 2022.

Most mass shootings since 1996 in Australia have been domestic violence incidents, or people shooting at police.
 
Pinball1970 said:
This is not a gun issue, the Jews who were killed in Manchester were stabbed.
Let us thank our lucky stars, that we do not have access to guns or laws relating to guns like the US has.
Australia had done ok on that front since Port Arthur 1996.
Click to expand...
When you restrict gun ownership. you also restrict defense for innocent people.
 
Pinball1970 said:
Proven not to work. Intelligence now is the only way to find these cells and act before they walk into a tube station, a bus, a sports venue, a music arena, a hotel, a Christmas market, a beach, the street etc and try to kill as many people as possible.
Click to expand...
That might reduce ideological terrorism. It won't stop the troubled loner type shooting we get so much of.

I'm not a fan of the armed civilian solution WoW mentioned for these reasons:

Many civilians simply want no part of guns. I'm one of them. Some can't afford them (they ain't cheap).

The Wild West scenario, with a gun holstered at every hip, is a recipe for chaos and carnage. Deadwood, a half hour drive from me, famously banned guns in the city limits - you turned your piece in at a sheriff's station. If Deadwood (the real one) understood this in 1877, you would think this is not a super difficult concept.

Finally, having a "freedom"' somehow dependent on a requirement to carry a firearm in daily civic life should strike any sane person as a dystopian end of civilization. One of the features of civilization is labor specialization - we don't have to grow our own food, build our own houses, or be our own police force.
 
TheVat said:
That might reduce ideological terrorism. It won't stop the troubled loner type shooting we get so much of.

I'm not a fan of the armed civilian solution WoW mentioned for these reasons:

Many civilians simply want no part of guns. I'm one of them. Some can't afford them (they ain't cheap).

The Wild West scenario, with a gun holstered at every hip, is a recipe for chaos and carnage. Deadwood, a half hour drive from me, famously banned guns in the city limits - you turned your piece in at a sheriff's station. If Deadwood (the real one) understood this in 1877, you would think this is not a super difficult concept.

Finally, having a "freedom"' somehow dependent on a requirement to carry a firearm in daily civic life should strike any sane person as a dystopian end of civilization. One of the features of civilization is labor specialization - we don't have to grow our own food, build our own houses, or be our own police force.
Click to expand...
It's OK if you want to rely on others and don't want a personal right to self-defense means. That's your choice, but why do you want to deny others the right to own the means of self-defense they wish to have, within the present rules. This attitude sounds rather fascist to me.
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
If certain death, without all the appeal BS, was in store, there would be less.
Click to expand...
Mass shooters expect to go out in a blaze of glory. When is the last time you saw a mass shooter with an escape plan?

Their own death is not a side effect of their actions, it is a bonus.

Wizard of Whatever said:
If more civilians were carrying legally, there would be less.
Click to expand...
What makes you think this? Any evidence? A guess?
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
[...] If more civilians were carrying legally, there would be less.
Click to expand...

Only gun advocate individuals and organizations like John Lott and Crime Prevention Research Center challenge FBI data that armed civilians only stopped a tiny fraction of shooters and other illegal acts over _X_ period.

The counter-view that the academic disparagement of their rival conclusions is the result of left-wing legacy media bias, interpretative partiality, and the establishment inherently not wanting to promote vigilantism regardless of actual figures... probably doesn't hold water. Due to detailed analysis of exactly where Lott and company stray.

At remote best, one might assert that research on firearms has declined or is insufficient to satisfactory conclude the issue either way (generating suspended belief). But what's puzzling is Lott's 2019 testimony that disputes claims that the NRA has obstructed "research on gun violence and gun safety". Thus, subverting that possibility of a knowledge deficit in favor of there being sufficient data, so that [apparently?] his usual claims of there being under-reporting and under-evaluation of the role of armed civilians is "potentially" justified [despite the sloppy scores and crank rating he receives in that context].
  • https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/109011/witnesses/HHRG-116-AP07-Wstate-LottJ-20190307.pdf

    EXCERPT (Lott): A lot of money is spent on firearms research, overwhelmingly just on Public Health research. The Dickey Amendment didn’t reduce Public Health research, nor grants given out by other parts of the government. By focusing on federal grants for Public Health researchers, many people have been misled into thinking that gun violence has been understudied. Even looking at all published research by Public Health researchers misses all the research published by economists, criminologists, and law professors...
The shoddy conclusions of the man shaping the gun-rights debate
https://www.newyorker.com/news/a-re...ions-of-the-man-shaping-the-gun-rights-debate

John Lott: Defensive gun use
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Defensive_gun_use

Biden administration claimed crime rate is at 50-year low. Is It?
https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/09/09/biden-crime-rate-50-year-low/
_
 
Last edited:
Wizard of Whatever said:
This is caused a lot by concealed and open carry laws which reduce the possibility of intervention.
Click to expand...

But claims by CPRC, Lott, etc are that the percentage is radically higher in areas and circumstances where those prohibitive laws don't apply. That's where the reciprocal derogation (with respect to data interpretation) between these gun-advocate "rogues" and the establishment enters the picture.

Massive errors in FBI’s Active Shooting Reports from 2014-2023 regarding cases where civilians stop attacks: Instead of 4%, the correct number is at least 35%. Excluding gun-free zones, it averaged over 51.5%.
https://crimeresearch.org/2024/07/m...t-least-35-excluding-gun-free-zones-it-avera/
_
 
The popularity and widespread normalising of collective guilt and collective retribution/punishment (media much implicated) intersecting with the always problematic 'feels good when bad people suffer' darker side of human nature (media much implicated) seem to play a big part. It seems a combination that brings bigotry and racism to the fore and reinforces it. It makes being Jewish or being Muslim what counts, not the identifying and targeting of those actually doing the offenses. A Muslim man disarming one of the attackers and getting shot for it by the other may be the only thing in all this ameliorating that racist/religious framing.
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
Again you twist the meaning of what I say. You know exactly what I meant.
Click to expand...
I know exactly what you POSTED, yes. You said "Find out who they are . . and kill them all" leaves little room for misinterpretation. You may now regret what you posted, but it is foolish (IMO) to now claim that you never posted that.

And yes, I also realize what you MEANT was "find out which Arab/Islamic group they belong to and kill them all" but you didn't post that, likely because you knew you would get blowback for a racist statement like that. So you posted the above. Which is why I asked specifically if you would still want to "kill them all" if they were right wing extremists. Which, predictably, you did not want, because they weren't the group you wanted to target.

You really are an unevolved person.
Click to expand...

Why thank you! Just call me Encino Man.
 
C C said:
Lott's
Click to expand...
Ugh, the 98 percent guy is the poster child of professing expertise outside of his actual field, and professing scientific impartiality and objectivity on a matter where he has a huge axe to grind. And DGMS on the selection bias. Or his dishonesty in not bringing the same scrutiny to country comparisons (which would, of course, blindingly illuminate the relationship between fewer guns and fewer gun homicides).
 
Wizard of Whatever said:
If certain death, without all the appeal BS, was in store, there would be less.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Studies have been done on this. The existence of the death penalty doesn't noticeably deter people from committing crimes punishable by the death penalty.
Wizard of Whatever said:
If more civilians were carrying legally, there would be less.
Click to expand...
The statistics don't bear that out, either. Compare, for example, the rates of mass shootings in the United States to the rates of mass shootings in Australia.
Wizard of Whatever said:
When you restrict gun ownership. you also restrict defense for innocent people.
Click to expand...
No. And the bonus is that if your assailant doesn't have a gun, you don't need a gun to defend yourself, either.
Wizard of Whatever said:
It's OK if you want to rely on others and don't want a personal right to self-defense means.
Click to expand...
A personal right to self-defence does not require guns. One can personally defend oneself with, say, a sharp stick, a knife or with one's fists. Not having a gun also greatly reduces the chance of your assailant taking your gun away and shooting you with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top