My mate was about to take his 4 and 6 year old there for a haircut today

Now we wait for the idiocracy to say ban knives, or what we needed was a good guy with a knife

This is terrible news. I’m glad your buddy and his family are ok.

No you take a gun to a knife fight, worked for the local police.

A good guy with a gun took care of the situation.

I am so very sorry.

You realise it was de escalated with fewer casualties because the bad guy didn’t have a gun.

I’m so sorry. That sounds so horrific and I’m so thankful the guy didn’t have a gun at the mall. It would have been so much worse, in terms of both the shoppers and for the police who responded.

Don’t confuse him.

I agree with you that a knife presents a very different danger than a gun. However there have been more than enough mass stabbing with double digit deaths and significantly more injuries, with many severe.

There are many variables to take into account. Or hypotheticals which we have no answer to.

Would eh have stabbed more if a good guy with a gun (police) hadn’t arrived?

Would a good guy with a knife or gun closer have been able to intervene and prevent as many deaths/injuries that did occur?

Will bad guys with knives and guns stop on their own or do they only wait for a good guy with a knife/gun to intervene?

We have no clue what these answers are: we can only make risk assessments and decide whether we want to hedge our bets.

Because the given premise is that bad guys/mentally unstable individuals/individuals intent on harm exist and these things will happen have to decide what risk is acceptable for those uncertain times.

That is my preferred state. Police have guns, bad guys don't.

Though in this case "worked" isn't quite the term I'd use given 6 people died.

"We are becoming as bad as the US..."


Not all of our exports are great.

I had to shake my head when reading those comments in the linked article. The notion of “how could this happen in Australia” and “we expect this in America not Australia” seem like either very short-sightedness, naivety, biased journalism looking for pot shots, or some combination of the above.

Sure, the reality is that America has more incidents like this but to pretend like it doesn’t happen elsewhere or that it’s so hard to imagine is counterproductive especially considering Australia has had mass murders and stabbings with cars, guns, knives, etc in modern times. Not to the extent of America, but it’s not like the violent history page is blank for Australia.

As I stated in the other thread people need to start accepting reality that this world is not a utopia and more people increase the potential risk of danger. And this shit will happen. Murder, mass murder, gun, knife, sledgehammer, fire, car, etc. are all realistic dangers and we need acknowledge realities to find acceptable risk and solutions.

I disagree a bit...sure stuff happens everywhere, but the angry young male school/mall/concert/church mass murder is an American trope.

This was a knifing, but at least superficially carried a lot of the hallmarks of some mass shootings. Granted the angry male knifing is also an Islamist terrorist trope, and it could be that instead.





But the U.S. is a leader. Not a lot of "all sidesian" going on in this graph. And yes, most of the shootings in the graph aren't the lone-angry-male-in-densely-populated area type, gangs, domestic violence, etc. But we do have a deep gun violence problem that transcends all the types....and I do worry about exporting it. Just like we're exporting MAGA-style "election integrity concerns."







That's a bit more blase and passive a turn of phrase than I'd like. It's also OK to be an activist against violence. For those who want to be. Don't just have to "accept this fact of life."

I disagree.

We have had decades of bombings; IRA and then Islamists in the UK but even then these sorts of mass incidents are rare, London bridge and ariane grande being the most recent but still rare

In France we lived in Nice when the guy drove down the promenade des anglais. Still super rare but whilst school shootings and others are still relatively rare in US the likely good of experiencing one is a magnitude greater than in Oz or Europe.

I’m thinking I didn’t make my points clearly, especially since I’m out with the fam and may have rushed my thoughts.

First, the notion of “this shit will happen” was not meant to be blasé or dismissive of the severity. Quite the opposite. I meant it in the sense that we need to be prepared for it, not that “meh shit happens.”

The initial message in my post was that the comments seemed naive to reality seeing how surprised they were. Australia has seen double digit mass casualty incidents (gun, knife, car, fire etc) since 2000. And almost 100 people killed in those incidents.

I also saw a statistic recently that knives/stabbings account for almost 25% of all worldwide murders.

Again, I’m admittedly a bit distracted and rushing these posts at the moment so apologies if the message is coming across poorly.

gal

Interesting. I'm guessing you found that from another source. The linked article didn't do a very good job explaining how it played out.

https://www.bbc.com/...d-australia-68806806

Sounds like they need to ban knives.

Thanks, that's a much better article.

Wow, that article. :(
These attacks seem like terrorism to me. They are so traumatizing and each successive one is re-traumatizing. I was thinking earlier today about how fear interferes with good decision-making. These attacks cause fear. I think they are designed / planned to cause fear and undermine a sense of safety/ community. Fuck.

That's fucking hysterical, literally won the internet given the second post in the thread

I did it just for you.

I've often wondered if calling these incidents for what they are - terrorism - and the perpetrators for what they are - terrorists - would that help in any way in deterring others from copying it?

I honestly don't know, and I wouldn't be surprised if it did nothing, but it is something I ponder.
- Jeff

I'm not sure what it would accomplish if it's not terrorism but rather someone having a psychotic break or just the mad at the world types looking to exact revenge on humanity for not treating them better.

Correct, and I agree completely. I'd like to think that labeling it for what it actually is, however, may give some pause, as in: 'Wait - terrorists? That's not me, that happens in the xxx (wherever they think).'

No idea if it would work, but again, it's something I think about.

Using the broadest definition of terrorism, anyone who is mad at the world and wants to teach it a lesson (a political lesson or religious lesson or social lesson or other ideological lesson) and inflicts harm on the public in this kind of attack, is committing terrorism. To teach a lesson through fear is a very definable thing. And I don’t like it— it doesn’t speak to a person’s logic or compassion. I don’t think it’s good for kids or adults.

We have had a few publicised knife rampages in the last few years. Each time there have been brave bystanders trying to corner the assailant using things like chairs or in this case a bollard at the top of an escalator. Such actions are almost certainly a suicide mission against an assault rifle. The ability to defend yourself or flee diminishes considerably.

It really isn’t a case of ‘we don’t know that for sure’.

I think that concept has merit for some crimes; using the words ‘kiddy scribble’ when reporting on graffiti.

But as Thisisit stated, I’m not sure if it works on people that unhinged that they want to kill others. Though I suppose it’s possible some of these kids don’t want to be thought of as a terrorist for eternity.

A good female police officer, on her own, who was not inside the shopping centre but nearby conducting venue compliance checks, no bullet proof vest etc, ran towards the danger, confronted the perpetrator and shot him dead when he raised the knife at her. She then did CPR on other nearby victims.

No matter how much people can say she did what she was trained to do etc, it must be remembered that in Australia an active offender like this, in this sort of environment, is incredibly rare. She certainly saved many more lives by her actions.

First, I don’t think people considering shooting up a mall or stabbing a bunch of people at a mall are all that concerned with the label applied to their actions.

Second, I’m not sure terrorism vs murder makes a significant difference in severity of label.

Third, these aren’t necessarily terrorist acts. In this case, the police have expressly stated that it isn’t terrorism related.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I was think ing about the fact that police expressly stated that it’s not terrorism, and it made me wonder what the word “terrorism” means. When the police say it’s not terrorism, are they saying the attack is not the coordinated effort of a specific group of people who exchange communications to plan it? Maybe that’s a particular type of terrorism— we can call that 9/11 Terrorism. I think the ultimate message the police were saying is that they are not looking for accomplices or co-conspirators. There’s no easily definable group working with that guy in his attack.

In America, we have enough lone wolf attacks that I think it makes sense to look at the events and take a step back and try to see if there is a pattern—. Is there a group of hard to identify people making efforts that cause these attacks? Why do our shootings keep happening? What is the common facts behind them? Mental illness? Grievance ideology? A fervor and embrace of violence?

As I think about information warfare and disinformation, I think there are other types of terrorism happening (terrorism that isn’t 9/11 Terriris). For the guy who shot up the synagogue near my house, his online activity showed he received/ shared/ posted information that culminated in his attack on a religious service near me. As I consider governments or groups who are malevolent to democracy in America, or Jews or LGBTQ or women’s rights, I think the disinformation is a communication intended to inspire attacks to weaken our communities by terror. I’ve heard the term “stochastic terrorism,” which hard to remember and hard to say.

So that’s where I’m going with the crazy guy who attacked the mall. Maybe I’m wrong and he wasn’t deluded by disinformation about women/ Jews/ LGBTQ/ and suffering from a grievance. Maybe he was purely crazy with a knife. Knives are meant to cut, and he simply did what the knife informed him to do. In that case, it wouldn’t be terrorism at all.

I think from a police response terrorism vs non terrorism may help them formulate an appropriate tactical response. And whether other areas should remain on high alert if they suspect a particular group of people is at risk in multiple locations. Or whether they can confidently drop a DEFCON level so to speak.

Maybe that’s why they specifically said it wasn’t terrorism. To deescalate.

I can’t disagree with that notion. But I did allude to multiple scenarios.

And again, the reality is that knives and guns do exist. We are never going to magically be rid of them. Even in Australia they exist.

I am on the 2A side of the gun debate but only if we can really enact some strict change. And when I imagine these scenarios I will think about if I was the one in the bathroom huddled with others hiding. Of if it was my wife killed when trying to protect our daughter.

…if I’m faced with a scenario where someone has a knife or gun coming after me I want to match or exceed the attackers abilities. I’d want a fighting chance. I’m just not sure where the discussion goes from there and what’s realistic.

Police statements on "terrorism" links are meant to inform and comfort the citizenry that this wasn't part of an organized attack that might be aimed at further violence. As you mentioned, it helps drive decisions on alert status, closures of various public facilities, etc.

"Terrorism" is typically the use or threat of violence to achieve a political or ideological policy agenda. Killing people because you hate Jews or hate Blacks or hate Christians or hate Republicans or whatever isn't necessarily terrorism just because it inspires terror. Killing people because you were bullied and suffer from mental health issues isn't necessarily terrorism. Many of these people don't have any particular policy agenda they're trying to force onto the government through their acts of violence. They're expressing pent up violence or pain or mental illness. That distinguishing aspect is why it's useful for law enforcement to characterize these events as related or not to terrorism. If it's simply a hateful or mentally ill person, then chances are that the violence is over. If it's part of a political agenda to get the government to change policy, then you might have to expect more violence until the terrorists are rooted out.

Middle Eastern terrorism isn't just about hating Israel or the West. It's about getting the West out of their countries, or about reducing Western influence on their culture and religion, or about shaping action about a Palestinian homeland, etc.

Terrorism in Ireland wasn't just about being angry or hating the English. It was specifically about ending British rule in Northern Ireland.

Conversely, most of the types of school shootings we've seen, for example, are more about expressing the pain of the shooter, or earning some sort of twisted sense of fame for the shooter. Those aren't really terrorism.

If we slap the terrorism label on every event that inspires fear, or is motivated by hate, or involves multiple victims, pretty soon it doesn't have any particular meaning.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Agree. Especially WRT your last paragraph and distinguishing it from other modern and intentional mass casualty incidents.

So terrorism isn’t the right word to describe this incident.

When I saw the still image of the guy carrying a knife through the mall, he looked like a well-nourished, properly dressed and groomed person who isn’t suffering from a debilitating mental illness, although his behavior shows something very wrong.

What is the name for a lone wolf attack on the general public that we see so often in America? We call them school shootings, usually, but they happen other places too (movie theaters, stores, streets, churches, etc). What is their name?

What's wrong with calling them a murderer or mass-murderer? What are you trying to solve by trying to come up with another word than the ones that we already use and are sufficient.

Mass-murderer works as a descriptor pretty damn well to me.

.

Mass murder might be the term I want.

I thought the school shooting phenomenon/ mass casualty event was a relatively new invention that presented new challenges to us. I was looking for a term for it. But the term mass murder might be the right word for the situation. It seems like a slightly more generic term, but it might be good.

The mass murder event at the Bondi mall was not an act of terrorism. I hope we find out what motivated the killer so we can see if it matches what has happened at other mass murder events. Perhaps patterns will emerge to help us prevent future mass murder events.

Active shooter? Active killer? Spree killer?

There are a bunch of different colloquial terms for it. Active shooter/killer is the most common term amongst American LE.

---

*****
"In case of flood climb to safety"

Active shooter is applicable while the shooter is active. It's more a term used to frame response in the moment (i.e. what actions should civilians and/or law enforcement take to stop the shooter) than it is about categorizing the crimes after the fact for prosecution or discussion.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

---

Based on some of his online postings (hobby based) it sounded like he was pretty lonely. Reaching out to try and tag along for a surf, to take photos of the stars etc. he was allegedly living in a car and/or storage facility (plus some time in a hostel). Not the greatest environments for someone with mental health issues.

Media also speculated whether women were his target but then he lunged at several men too. Some women have come forward from dating sites saying that had met up for dates and that he seemed sweet. Haven’t seen anything yet where women claimed he was a creep etc.

There are a lot of lonely people out there. Throw in current day cost of living issues and people snapping will become more likely.

Got less than half way through that stupid shit and gave up.

The reasons he managed to kill as many as he did is very simple.
He targeted women, many of whom were stabbed in the back and because any attack is simply so rare in Australia, no one expects anything like this to happen so people were slow to react.
As soon as a couple of guys confronted him and had him trapped on the escalator, it was pretty much over


Im sure that your YT video would have concluded something along the lines of "if there was a good guy with a gun, this wouldn't happen", but America has shown time and again that there are far more bad guys with guns than good guys wth guns, so fuck that.
Again, I didnt watch the whole vid, so maybe the guy was heading for a different conclusion, but as soon as he mentioned 2A, I had a fair idea where it was headed

There it is. Dumb fuckery comment I fully expected. If this was in the US, 30 people would be dead.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

If everyone was allowed to carry, very few people would be killed.

Keep telling yourself that bullshit.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

But aren’t most people in the US allowed to carry? If we wanted to carry, we could. Most people don’t want to carry. Most people prefer a peaceful society where being armed isn’t necessary for survival

He's delusional

Is this a fucking bit? Because I don't think the victims of gun violence think it is super funny.

According to the NYSRPA v. Bruen case, everyone (that isn't a prohibited person) can get a concealed carry license.

However, after that ruling, many states almost immediately responded by changing their rules to get a license so that they were still very difficult to get. Some states also made other rules that made almost everywhere a "sensitive place" where license holders couldn't carry.

If the victims of gun violence had been carrying, they might not be dead.

I know this is just you being a dick, but you really are a dick.

Shut the fuck up, you stupid cock.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

I'm pretty sure that carrying a firearm would have increased the likelihood of not being dead.

How is that working out for you in America?

And Im certain you have no idea what the hell you are talking about

Currently, it is still quite difficult to legally carry.

Criminals can carry whenever and wherever they want.

If America has taught the world anything regarding gun violence, its that more guns are not the solution.
But hey, you do you

As much as I appreciate your posts, you might want to understand the definition of "terrorism":

"The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
https://www.google.com/...-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Are they all in pusuit of political gains? Hard to say. But they most definitely are used to try to intimidate civilians. And really, that's more the entire point of using the term: they are terrorizing the populace.

I don't think it would change much, but if it even made one or two people think differently? Well...

Through one lens it can look like an arbitrary term because of how we colloquially use the word terrorize.

However as we have said earlier in the thread the accepted definition for law enforcement specifically states for political or idealogical purposes. This is very important because it dictates a significant portion of the tactical response and messaging to the public. And often that response and message is different if it’s one sad and troubled man with a knife in a mall or known extremists groups with a plot to target multiple Christian churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.

It may not always be an exact science but it matters a great deal. So it’s not just being pedantic; individuals intimidating random people is not the same as terrorism with a specific purpose or targeting a specific group of individuals.

Huh? Take a look at all the states that allow open carry without a permit. All but four states and DC allow open carry either licensed or unlicensed.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/...hich-states-allow-it

I think if you read further a couple posts, you’d have seen that I know very well what terrorism is.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I think dim@beyond meant that it's difficult for ammosexuals to physically carry enough "emotional support weaponry" to make them feel safe when, say, going to the library.

I’m curious about national security & terrorism, particularly since 2016. I assume there have been changes in the state of the art in the last 20 years, and especially in the last 7 years given disinformation & information warfare?

Sorry, I should have said that is is difficult to legally concealed carry.

Open carry can make you a target for a bad guy and you lose your tactical advantage.

Pretty sure, you say?

I'm pretty sure if you expressed your sentiments at any pub, backyard bbq, footy game or elsewhere in Sydney over the weekend, the prevailing response would have been along the lines of, "Fuck you, cunt! Piss off home and take your favourite firearm, shove it up arse and fire off as many rounds as possible."

https://www.skynews.com.au/...c0b91f93021253d18e94

So an Assyrian orthodox priest now stabbed. I don't know the motivation. Also reporting a large group of people outside the church facing off with the police.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

How about carrying a knife, sword, baton, or cane?

Yes I saw that. What I don't get is the violence displayed towards first responders. Not sure what ethnicity the majority of that mob were, but they're welcome to take that behaviour back to where it's considered acceptable. It isn't here.

The priest evidently expressed some rather inflammatory views during covid, so perhaps it's just a case of the apple not falling far. Regardless, glad no one died.

Is it important to have tactical advantage to go to the mall / library / school / church, etc?

Remember when wearing a mask was, "living in fear"? I can't imagine living with the level of paranoia that would require being secretly armed to protect myself from strangers.

They ever figure out who the stabber was or why he was doing it? Seems like a crazed lunatic just going apeshit. Was he after a certain person, just random people, be curious to know what they find out.

Yes.


https://www.police1.com/...rm-OmGHCjtwBx46WoIt/

His identity has been released. He was essentially a transient with a long history of serious mental illness. I've not seen any mention of motive.

I tip my hat to the officer who engaged the suspect and killed him. Job very well done. It might be simple but it ain't easy - tough shot with a handgun and a 9mm rarely puts a suspect down immediately.

---

*****
"In case of flood climb to safety"

But you do have sufficient fear to feel it necessary to take away guns from everyone, including law abiding citizens, in order to feel safer around strangers?

It seems like both fears are related to the same root, but with different action plans to improve the feeling of safety.

Did I say that?

That’s a dumb argument. If more guns in a society makes it a less safe society, then sure, to feel more safe then we need less guns overall.

Yes, both fears are related to the same root: more guns in a society make everyone more unsafe. Statistics show this to be true. America shows this to be true.

Any recommendations on how to reduce the number of guns in America?

Sadly with the political structure we have, that’s never going to happen. It’s happened in other countries though, with notably positive effects.

I think the broader point is, that irrespective of whether one should own arms, carry openly or concealed in the US, few other societies are willing to accept the social costs for accomodating a minority (less than 50%) that want or live in house holds with guns.

Incidents like Sydney, London bridge, 7/7 are tragic be the causes mental health related or terrorism but the reality is that they are extremely rare and have a significantly lower impact than those in the US where firearms are readily available and making guns more readily available would simply turn these other societies in to a version of the US that no majority had expressed an interest in wanting.

The idea that having armed staff be they police or educator's in schools to prevent incidents that are usually mental health related is just nuts - what's it say about a society that the health and social system is so broken that you need people with guns just in case

sounds difficult. better to not try, and to just keep stacking up dead students like cord wood.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

These events are relatively rare down here. We had the workplace shooting in Auckland. Guy walked onto his job site (new Deloitte building) and shot two coworkers. It made international news. Meanwhile there are several shootings a day in every USA metropolitan aera that don't even get to their local news.

I walked right through that shooting at Britomart. Was walking to catch a bus to work. Saw three ambulances racing down Queen St. Weird? Got on my bus and as we were leaving saw armed police presence. Police don't usually carry guns here.

In December 2023, there were over 1.7M firearms purchased in the US.

This marks 53 consecutive months that firearm sales were over 1M units.

A more scary fact is the ammo shortage. Who TF is hoarding that much ammo? It isn't all being fired at a range on weekends, surely?

yep. trying to do anything about it would be really hard. all the deaths are worth it. keep doing what you're doing.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

in your opinion, is that good, bad, or indifferent?

---

Eliot
blog thing - strava thing

1.7M firearms sold in December 2023 is really good.

Almost 1.2M firearms were sold in January 2024, which is a bit disappointing.

Pretty sure it's different reasons at different times. But generally classic supply and demand stuff.

Currently meant to be supply chain issues.

Covid era saw a spike in demand as more Americans became gun owners, paired with global supply chain constraints.

Then it's anecdotal, not data, but behavior of Joe Public at gun shows anytime a Democratic president is elected (especially if that president is black), suggests that those spikes in ammo demand have some fearmongering attached to them. I recall gun shows being sold out of ammo by mid-morning on day 1.

---

Eliot
blog thing - strava thing

Christmas rush, amirite?!

When you say "good" and "disappointing," is that from the standpoint of firearm manufacturer balance sheets, 2A absolutists, the safety of the general public, or all of the above?

---

Eliot
blog thing - strava thing

It's probably a bit of all of the above.

High accuracy 22LR has been hard to find for years! And that's not stuff with high demand - not many people want to spent $20+ for a box of 50 22LR when the basic stuff is $25 for 333 rounds.