Five killed in mass stabbing at Sydney's Bondi Junction

Why would he do that?

He was a gun nut.

And using his guns to kill people was the fantasy he'd been harboring for months.

He had the advantage of living in one of the world's most permissive countries when it came to guns, and was able to transport them to his room without arousing the slightest suspicion.

Don't you think that's fantastic?

 

@Turtledude believes that the first instinct of a civilian carrying a weapon is to shoot back.

The first thing they do is flee.

And it's perfectly normal to do so.

Even school guards flee when there's an active shooter.

 

So far on this thread alone you have denigrated the female police officer and now you are denigrating people with mental health issues

Congrats- any other minorities you would like to target?

 

wrong as usual-If you actually bother to read my prior posts on these situations-what we teach people in an active shooter situation is this
1) find cover-something that will protect you from incoming rounds if you cannot quickly escape
2) call the police and tell them where you are and give them as much information as possible about the shooter
3) if the shooter attempts to engage you, then you fire. we do not teach people to go hunting for the active shooter

 

Yep! Don’t think there would have been as many people willing to tackle this guy if he had been armed with a gun. If he had had a gun a plastic chair or a bollard won’t do you much good but a knife, well you have a chance

 

how do you know he was a "gun nut"/ He planned his massacre for years.
and with a net worth of over 10 million dollars and two airplanes, tell me how you could have prevented him from getting arms

 

Well, then how do they stop them? I mean I thought, from posts here, that the idea was to go charging in waving the gun

 

Send him to us. Someone would have let it slip to the police before he started shouting

 

you guard the place you have taken cover and shoot the active killer if he comes in your area.

 

He spent over a year amassing his collection of firearms. He actually surveilled other gatherings as well.

 

So you don't need a gun to do all that... And #3 never happens, because if the shooter gets close to you, your first instinct is to do #1.... again.

Because the Pro 2A argument is that an armed civilian will shoot the shooter.

If that's not the primary objective, what's the point of carrying a gun?

 

the primary objective is to protect YOURSELF. is that something you find hard to understand?

again, when the agenda is banning guns, the advice will not be based on what is best for an individual but more designed to convince others, guns are not needed

 

Our poor Aussie brothers. Still, bet they're glad they restricted gun ownership so it's not another Port Arthur massacre.

 

The best way to live safely is to prevent the proliferation of guns.

If guns were effective instruments of self-defense, criminals wouldn't be able to kill each other.

My primary objective is not to have a gun in your possession to defend yourself against a crazed gunman.

It's to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people.

 

that is akin to saying if hospitals worked, no one would be sick in them

yes we know one of your objectives is to disarm us by pretending your goal is to disarm crazy people

 

Steven Paddock could have launched dozens of gasoline molotovs from his window too. probably killed far more. Certainly maimed hundreds.

The unavailability of a particular weapon does nothing to discourage a person bent on murder. It just means they choose an alternate.

Guns aren’t even the most lethal mass murder weapon. According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

Weapons are just mechanical devices. They do not have malice. Weapons have never killed anyone without being used by a human being.

 

But he is still shooting and killing

 

Yes and that would have sent up big red flags here. That is because people cannot amass that amount of firepower without sending up red flags. Here you would have to source a lot of firepower through criminal channels and even crims do not like the idea of random idiots committing mass murder

 

Sooooo - you are hiding with your gun and there is an active shooter with a high powered weapon randomly shooting - ricochet???

 

you protect yourself and your family.

 

yeah we know that gun banners are often big fans of big government and less freedom for the citizenry.

 

what's a high powered weapon-most mass shootings use 9mm handguns, just like the one I carry. And I can consistently hit a target at 75M with a handgun, Most mass shooters cannot, I have a great idea-go through the FBI active shooter training and then do a couple hundred hours of house clearing and defensive shooting classes and get back to me since it's obvious you have no understanding how all of this works

 

It’s a shame no one who was attacked had a gun.

 

Goes hand in hand

 

If that was the case 9/11 would have never happened.