• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Guy goes on stabbing spree in Sydney

Bullet Club

Gold Member
Oct 24, 2017
4,076
7,003
795
1 person dead, sadly.


The most interesting part of the story is that he was caught by citizens and kept under control with a milk crate and a chair.





 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,137
1,563
435
And yet again we see that in the absence of one tool, they'll use another.
To be fair he just managed to kill one person while in the US in a few seconds shooters kill several with automatic weapons. Also, isnt it a bit ironic that Americans claim the right to own and carry arms to defend themselves from and stop rogue shooters and, yet, no shooting spree in the US has been stopped by a normal citizen carrying a gun and here people used a damn milk crate to stop the madman while in Norway the guy was also stopped without guns and both are countries with heavy arms regulations. Food for thought i guess...
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
5,724
2,822
720
And yet again we see that in the absence of one tool, they'll use another.
With logical conclusion that it is better to give that other tool.
Besides, wounds caused by a knife are worse than those by bullets.

It is also much faster to kill someone with automatic rifle, rather than with semi-automatic, which shortens the suffering period for victims.

Out of weapons under "firearms" category, only cannons could, possibly, be worse than knifes, but cannons are not mobile and could only be used to protect your property. I personally, would buy 4, if it was allowed, and station them in N/E/S/W directions, to feel protected from all sides.

PS
What about flamethrowers, guys? Wouldn't it be, cough, cool, if one could use them to protect him/herself?

 

MrTickles

Member
Feb 22, 2018
3,113
4,052
650
To be fair he just managed to kill one person while in the US in a few seconds shooters kill several with automatic weapons. Also, isnt it a bit ironic that Americans claim the right to own and carry arms to defend themselves from and stop rogue shooters and, yet, no shooting spree in the US has been stopped by a normal citizen carrying a gun and here people used a damn milk crate to stop the madman while in Norway the guy was also stopped without guns and both are countries with heavy arms regulations. Food for thought i guess...
This is false.

As for weapons that are particularly destructive, as a Sydney-sider i can make one of these in under a week using stuff from my local hardware store:


You will never be able to stop assholes on a mission.
 
Last edited:

brap

Member
Jan 9, 2018
5,430
11,586
735
With logical conclusion that it is better to give that other tool.
Besides, wounds caused by a knife are worse than those by bullets.

It is also much faster to kill someone with automatic rifle, rather than with semi-automatic, which shortens the suffering period for victims.

Out of weapons under "firearms" category, only cannons could, possibly, be worse than knifes, but cannons are not mobile and could only be used to protect your property. I personally, would buy 4, if it was allowed, and station them in N/E/S/W directions, to feel protected from all sides.

PS
What about flamethrowers, guys? Wouldn't it be, cough, cool, if one could use them to protect him/herself?

Flamethrowers are legal in 48 states brother. This is real freedom.
 
  • Triggered
Reactions: llien

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
Feb 5, 2008
8,556
402
1,085
This is incredibly sad.

I hope the remaining victims make a full recovery.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
13,806
21,861
1,300
Australia
To be fair he just managed to kill one person while in the US in a few seconds shooters kill several with automatic weapons. Also, isnt it a bit ironic that Americans claim the right to own and carry arms to defend themselves from and stop rogue shooters and, yet, no shooting spree in the US has been stopped by a normal citizen carrying a gun and here people used a damn milk crate to stop the madman while in Norway the guy was also stopped without guns and both are countries with heavy arms regulations. Food for thought i guess...
That’s not true. There have been several recent attempted mass shootings stopped by armed citizens. You just don’t hear about them because they’re not widely reported on. I recall seeing some posted in Clown World thread.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
36,796
9,955
1,340
Not asking for an endless tide. Asking for some basic decency in the first goddamn response. Then everyone can launch into the usual cyclic gun debate that inevitably appears and goes nowhere.
some wanna get past niceties, the situation is over (such as it is) and all that's left is the discussion

people will either drop a rip rocket grave or they won't, no need to castigate either way
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Lanrutcon

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,145
2,722
490
Moore Park Beach
This is false.

As for weapons that are particularly destructive, as a Sydney-sider i can make one of these in under a week using stuff from my local hardware store:


You will never be able to stop assholes on a mission.
When I was a kid, ~13-14 or so, growing up in the middle of nowhere, me and my best friend used to make nitrocellulose and also nitroglycerine ourselves.
Really fun actually. Go out to the abandoned land-fill in the forest nearby and blow up dead cars.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: Tesseract

MrTickles

Member
Feb 22, 2018
3,113
4,052
650
When I was a kid, ~13-14 or so, growing up in the middle of nowhere, me and my best friend used to make nitrocellulose and also nitroglycerine ourselves.
Really fun actually. Go out to the abandoned land-fill in the forest nearby and blow up dead cars.
Those elephant rockets in syria are even simpler, just a full gas canister with some model hobby rockets mounted to its side and it is fired from a metal drum. 500m range, 30m kill radius, fun noise.
 
Last edited:

Kenpachii

Gold Member
Mar 23, 2018
1,890
1,371
540
And yet again we see that in the absence of one tool, they'll use another.
What would you rather have a guy with a knife that runs towards you, or a guy with a gun that runs towards you?

Yea gimme the knife.

Also why is that guy not stabbed himself?

Stab him the fucking legs or something. Or drens him into pig blood.
 
Last edited:

Damage Inc

Member
Nov 10, 2013
4,543
2,390
760
To be fair he just managed to kill one person while in the US in a few seconds shooters kill several with automatic weapons. Also, isnt it a bit ironic that Americans claim the right to own and carry arms to defend themselves from and stop rogue shooters and, yet, no shooting spree in the US has been stopped by a normal citizen carrying a gun and here people used a damn milk crate to stop the madman while in Norway the guy was also stopped without guns and both are countries with heavy arms regulations. Food for thought i guess...
yeah we don’t have automatic weapons over here for the general public. At least get your terms right if you’re going to try to lecture us.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,137
1,563
435
yeah we don’t have automatic weapons over here for the general public. At least get your terms right if you’re going to try to lecture us.
Semi-automatic then? The point still stands. Or even a regular hand gun is much more lethal than a knife and can be used to kill more people in less amount of time. Sorry that I hurt your feelings.
 

Damage Inc

Member
Nov 10, 2013
4,543
2,390
760
Semi-automatic then? The point still stands. Or even a regular hand gun is much more lethal than a knife and can be used to kill more people in less amount of time. Sorry that I hurt your feelings.
yup my feelings were devastated by your ignorance.

but yes I agree a gun can do more damage in a shorter period of time. But in the absence of Guns they will turn to other things.
 
Last edited:

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,137
1,563
435
yup my feelings were devastated by your ignorance.

but yes I agree a gun can do more damage in a shorter period of time. But in the absence of Guns they will turn to other things.
Yeah things like a knife that can be stopped even with a milk crate... not so easy to stop a bullet. But anyways, I was just commenting on how ironic it all seems from the outside, I don't really care though, I don't live in the US, you guys have fun with your guns.
 

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
1,093
830
975
Ottawa, Canada
yup my feelings were devastated by your ignorance.

but yes I agree a gun can do more damage in a shorter period of time. But in the absence of Guns they will turn to other things.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything to temper access to guns. The point isn't to pretend you can stop all deadly violence, it's to prevent people like this Sydney attacker from killing 10 people in a matter of minutes instead of just one... and in some cases, from perpetrating attacks altogether. The Las Vegas concert shooter wasn't going to stab hundreds of people from a hotel room across the street.
 

Jonirenicus

Member
Jun 23, 2019
148
156
280
That doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything to temper access to guns. The point isn't to pretend you can stop all deadly violence, it's to prevent people like this Sydney attacker from killing 10 people in a matter of minutes instead of just one... and in some cases, from perpetrating attacks altogether. The Las Vegas concert shooter wasn't going to stab hundreds of people from a hotel room across the street.
The Las Vegas shooter planned his attack long in advance. If not guns, he would have had other avenues for mass casualties such as bombs.
 

Damage Inc

Member
Nov 10, 2013
4,543
2,390
760
That doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything to temper access to guns. The point isn't to pretend you can stop all deadly violence, it's to prevent people like this Sydney attacker from killing 10 people in a matter of minutes instead of just one... and in some cases, from perpetrating attacks altogether. The Las Vegas concert shooter wasn't going to stab hundreds of people from a hotel room across the street.
I’m pro gun and have a few. Getting a new shotgun here soon. Buying from a store you get all the background checks and wait period. The way I got my Beretta was a gift from a friend. Zero paperwork and literally was just handed to me. I’ve never been in trouble with the law or even been questioned by cops. But if someone does a private sale there’s no way to establish if someone is a felon or mentally unstable outside of your own judgement. That I think is an issue and would be very difficult to regulate but should be looked at. But even at gun shows you have background checks but I can sell a gun to someone without any process.

I’m going for a concealed permit this month and will have to take the class. I would say taking a safety class at least should be added to your background check process.
 

Jonirenicus

Member
Jun 23, 2019
148
156
280
Any other rights you feel need to be gated behind a financial and time barrier? Maybe bring back poll taxes? A mandatory $300 Voter ID that needs to be renewed every election maybe?
 

Damage Inc

Member
Nov 10, 2013
4,543
2,390
760
The guy who thinks someone's rights need to be gated behind a mandatory class?
lol. So me. At least have the balls to quote me.

Well lets start with some stories of safety that I have seen.

1. Good friend of my Wife's was cleaning his .45 cal handgun and it went off and hit him in the leg. He lost the leg due to an artery being damaged.

2. Guy that works with the Company I do had a accidental fire while cleaning his gun in an apartment. Lucikly it didn't hit anyone but it hit a water pipe and got his family evicted from the property. He was "Lucky" that he was using Hollow points.

You can't always fix stupid but you can at least take a safety class. I wouldn't say that infringes on a right anymore than paying for a background check is. And one has to have the safety class to get a CCW anyways. So a basic class on handling firearms would not be a bad deal. You have classes for everything else, I am not even saying a license that is tracked outside of a CCW but a general safety course on handling firearms properly. I've seen people pick up a weapon, not check if it was loaded, finger on the trigger without a smidge of a thought to check those things.

So you say a class is a financal barrier and a time barrier, how is that any different than paying $500 bucks for a handgun and paying the background check fees? Are those not barriers on their own? Do you support free guns for all since it is a right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nymphae

dionysus

Yaldog
May 12, 2007
6,592
448
1,250
Texaa
To be fair he just managed to kill one person while in the US in a few seconds shooters kill several with automatic weapons. Also, isnt it a bit ironic that Americans claim the right to own and carry arms to defend themselves from and stop rogue shooters and, yet, no shooting spree in the US has been stopped by a normal citizen carrying a gun and here people used a damn milk crate to stop the madman while in Norway the guy was also stopped without guns and both are countries with heavy arms regulations. Food for thought i guess...
It happens. Media doesn't report it. The below link is actually anti-gun despite the website name suggesting it would be pro-gun.


Certain media personalities and sources claim that if more citizens were armed we would have less mass shootings. We decided to check and see if armed citizens have stopped mass shootings. While some mass shootings have been stopped the number is very low. First the numbers: According to FBI crime analysis, of 110 active shooter events 49% ended before police arrived. Of the cases that ended before the police arrived, 67 percent (34) ended with attackers stopping themselves via suicide (29 cases) or by leaving the scene (5 cases). In the other 33 percent (17) of the cases that ended before the police arrived, the potential victims at the scene stopped the shooter themselves. Most commonly they physically subdued the attacker (14 cases), but three cases involved people at the scene shooting the perpetrator to end the attack. According to these numbers citizens with guns have ended a mass shooting 3% of the time. For the sake of fact checking we will use the FBI statistics, but several sources have documented up to 10 times where a mass shooting was ended by an armed citizen. Again, for statistical purposes we rely on the FBI as an authority. The bottom line is that armed citizens have certainly prevented more casualties in mass shootings, but the number is statistically very low and the majority of the time unarmed citizens subdue the shooter.

Funny enough I don't think the data suggests what the fact checker wants it to. He says 33% of mass shootings ended when people subdued the attacker, with only a small portion of those because of an armed citizen. That doesn't prove that being armed doesn't increase the odds of stopping a mass shooting before the police arrive, it just proves most people aren't armed or that attackers choose locations where it is illegal to be armed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crowbrow

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,137
1,563
435
It happens. Media doesn't report it. The below link is actually anti-gun despite the website name suggesting it would be pro-gun.


Certain media personalities and sources claim that if more citizens were armed we would have less mass shootings. We decided to check and see if armed citizens have stopped mass shootings. While some mass shootings have been stopped the number is very low. First the numbers: According to FBI crime analysis, of 110 active shooter events 49% ended before police arrived. Of the cases that ended before the police arrived, 67 percent (34) ended with attackers stopping themselves via suicide (29 cases) or by leaving the scene (5 cases). In the other 33 percent (17) of the cases that ended before the police arrived, the potential victims at the scene stopped the shooter themselves. Most commonly they physically subdued the attacker (14 cases), but three cases involved people at the scene shooting the perpetrator to end the attack. According to these numbers citizens with guns have ended a mass shooting 3% of the time. For the sake of fact checking we will use the FBI statistics, but several sources have documented up to 10 times where a mass shooting was ended by an armed citizen. Again, for statistical purposes we rely on the FBI as an authority. The bottom line is that armed citizens have certainly prevented more casualties in mass shootings, but the number is statistically very low and the majority of the time unarmed citizens subdue the shooter.

Funny enough I don't think the data suggests what the fact checker wants it to. He says 33% of mass shootings ended when people subdued the attacker, with only a small portion of those because of an armed citizen. That doesn't prove that being armed doesn't increase the odds of stopping a mass shooting before the police arrive, it just proves most people aren't armed or that attackers choose locations where it is illegal to be armed.
I understand but still this statistic is pretty telling. So only 3% of the attacks are stopped with a civilian with a gun and yet you have the most permissive gun laws in the developed world. So the obvious question would be with more regulations how many of those shootings would have been avoided by making it more difficult for people to get guns and/or get guns with less destructive power? If it's more than 3% then the rational and logical step would be to regulate guns more.
 

dionysus

Yaldog
May 12, 2007
6,592
448
1,250
Texaa
I understand but still this statistic is pretty telling. So only 3% of the attacks are stopped with a civilian with a gun and yet you have the most permissive gun laws in the developed world. So the obvious question would be with more regulations how many of those shootings would have been avoided by making it more difficult for people to get guns and/or get guns with less destructive power? If it's more than 3% then the rational and logical step would be to regulate guns more.
You'd have to control for shootings that happen in gun free zones like schools, but yea the argument has merit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crowbrow

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
1,093
830
975
Ottawa, Canada
The Las Vegas shooter planned his attack long in advance. If not guns, he would have had other avenues for mass casualties such as bombs.
You still don't need to make it as easy as buying an arsenal through a gun store. And I'd argue that guns were the ideal method for him, since he could hurt people in the entire crowd rather than limiting himself to whoever was closest to a bomb.
 

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
1,093
830
975
Ottawa, Canada
I’m pro gun and have a few. Getting a new shotgun here soon. Buying from a store you get all the background checks and wait period. The way I got my Beretta was a gift from a friend. Zero paperwork and literally was just handed to me. I’ve never been in trouble with the law or even been questioned by cops. But if someone does a private sale there’s no way to establish if someone is a felon or mentally unstable outside of your own judgement. That I think is an issue and would be very difficult to regulate but should be looked at. But even at gun shows you have background checks but I can sell a gun to someone without any process.

I’m going for a concealed permit this month and will have to take the class. I would say taking a safety class at least should be added to your background check process.
Those are certainly issues to address. My frustration isn't so much which guns are available (although I do question the 'need' for semi-auto rifles) as that many gun enthusiasts seem to have a common slogan: "above all else, do absolutely nothing." They've been so conditioned to think of gun control as a slippery slope argument that they refuse all political action, to think a mass murder a day would be better than, say, restricting private gun sales.
 
Last edited:

Damage Inc

Member
Nov 10, 2013
4,543
2,390
760
Those are certainly issues to address. My frustration isn't so much which guns are available (although I do question the 'need' for semi-auto rifles) as that many gun enthusiasts seem to have a common slogan: "above all else, do absolutely nothing." They've been so conditioned to think of gun control as a slippery slope argument that they refuse all political action, to think a mass murder a day would be better than, say, restricting private gun sales.
Guess you won’t like the Semi Auto Shotgun I’m buying ;)

Private sales I’ve always viewed as weird. But outside of tracking everything I don’t think there is anything that can be done. Most people won’t want registration and licensing.
 

Jonirenicus

Member
Jun 23, 2019
148
156
280
Those are certainly issues to address. My frustration isn't so much which guns are available (although I do question the 'need' for semi-auto rifles) as that many gun enthusiasts seem to have a common slogan: "above all else, do absolutely nothing." They've been so conditioned to think of gun control as a slippery slope argument that they refuse all political action, to think a mass murder a day would be better than, say, restricting private gun sales.
That's because it IS a slippery slope. Every single new infringement just leads to more, and we never get anything back. There is never anything given up by the gun grabbers, just more and more taking from gun owners.
 

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
1,093
830
975
Ottawa, Canada
Guess you won’t like the Semi Auto Shotgun I’m buying ;)

Private sales I’ve always viewed as weird. But outside of tracking everything I don’t think there is anything that can be done. Most people won’t want registration and licensing.
Well, I'd question the utility of it (you don't need to unload several rounds into a deer), but I suspect you'll be a responsible owner. It's the less-than-responsible ones I'm concerned about!

The main thing is that the US needs to place more emphasis on responsibility for gun ownership. It's still wild to me as a Canadian that gun ownership is treated so casually in the US, even with the wait periods and background checks.
 

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
1,093
830
975
Ottawa, Canada
That's because it IS a slippery slope. Every single new infringement just leads to more, and we never get anything back. There is never anything given up by the gun grabbers, just more and more taking from gun owners.
Like I said, gun enthusiasts have been conditioned to pretend it's a slippery slope, rather than to think logically and rationally. The conditioning worked particularly well on you.
 
Last edited:

Damage Inc

Member
Nov 10, 2013
4,543
2,390
760
Well, I'd question the utility of it (you don't need to unload several rounds into a deer), but I suspect you'll be a responsible owner. It's the less-than-responsible ones I'm concerned about!

The main thing is that the US needs to place more emphasis on responsibility for gun ownership. It's still wild to me as a Canadian that gun ownership is treated so casually in the US, even with the wait periods and background checks.
Im concerned about the idiots too! It’s scary how stupid people can be.

There was this one deer my dad shot and tracked down. The buck wasn’t dead and it popped up and started charging and trying to attack. So him and his buddies unloaded as this huge buck was right in their faces. They went through multiple rounds in a quick manner to drop the deer and stop its suffering. Without Semi Auto they probably would have been in rough shape. So in cases yes it is very needed.

also I would hate to be charged by a big boar and have to rely on a bolt action in close range. Those things are extremely tough and violent.

the main reason I am going for a tactical shotgun is mostly for interest in competition shooting. My buddy wants me to join him in that.

I am about to start training my Son. He is a few years older than I was when I started handling weapons. I was at a range as young as 9 shooting bolt action 22s and some handguns along with an interest in archery. I’m happy to be taught proper management and I know lots of people don’t get that and just buy them without learning how to use them.

plus teaching them young removes the taboo of it. I never was curious about the guns my dad had because I knew what they were and what they could do. My son already has a respect for them and he hasn’t shot them. I handed him a 380 the other day and had the right grip without finger near the trigger.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: windhys