Breaking: Report of man w/ shotgun and ISIS flag holding hostages in Australia

[mbills2223]

In case there's any doubt that this is a "terror attack"

Terrorist told hostages to inform media that “this is an attack on Australia by IS” in recordings he made with the hostages

BREAKING: Hostages On Video From Inside #SydneySiege | Truth Revolt

ISIS is just begging the world to attack them...they truly are excellent recruiters.

 

[printcraft]

Coming soon to mall in a blue state near you.

 

[Trigger Time]

Can't wait to see daylight shine through his head

 

[cobber]

Good point....I think I just heard about 1.57 billion people decrying the violence and committing themselves to rooting out anyone among them who would endorse such things.

Funny, I heard that too. In a dream. That I never had.

 

[Denny347]

Your points are valid, but so is the point of gun control.

How often do you see something like this, or any lone person committing violence on a large number of people, in a US location where citizens are allowed to carry?

Predators go after prey. A group of people in an upscale coffeehouse in a city, in a locality where no lawful citizen can carry, are likely "prey" to a guy like this.


Or let's make a more specific analogy. Would the dude try this in a cafe in rural America? If he did, would the news report likely look different?

Perhaps, but I think our country has far more sheep than sheepdogs. There have no studies on this but it would be fascinating to know how many of these gunman actually give this concept a thought and how many just get lucky.

 

[Bunnykid68]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152979718833812&fref=nf

 

[ArcadiaGP]

From CCWCooke:

Australia’s late 1990s gun restrictions have little to do with this siege. As far as I know, the country never, ever had concealed carry. So, by all means argue that Australia should *introduce* concealed carry if you like, but I don’t think that the country has *changed*. Same goes for England. Even before the handgun ban, there was no carry regime. You could own certain pistols, but you couldn’t carry them. Now, would this have been as easy in Oklahoma City? No. As Interpol noted recently, armed citizens can help. But that’s a separate question. Also worth pointing out that, practically speaking, ensuring good guys can carry guns is less important in a country that has few of them.

Which is to say: “I think law-abiding people should be able to carry guns” *sounds* different in a country with few than one with ~250-400m. Practically speaking, the question here is, “given we have ~250-400m guns, who gets them?” Most countries don’t parse the issue like that. Most countries also know that they can feasibly get rid of the existing cache of firearms, which is smaller and unprotected by law/culture.

This is why it’s usually futile to try to talk to people in other countries—or Americans who fetishize other countries—about this issue.

 

[MCgrease08]

Sydney siege ends as police raid cafe; possible deaths, multiple injuries reported | Fox 59

 

[Slawburger]

From CCWCooke:
...
Practically speaking, the question here is, “given we have ~250-400m guns, who gets them?” Most countries don’t parse the issue like that. Most countries also know that they can feasibly get rid of the existing cache of firearms, which is smaller and unprotected by law/culture.
...

That's a good point.

 

[T.Lex]

Something strange about how this went down.

From here:
BLOODY END TO SIEGE: Two dead, including Muslim gunman and at least one hostage, as police storm Sydney cafe with assault rifles and stun grenades moments after hostages tried to flee | Daily Mail Online

A scene of pandemonium erupted in the early morning just minutes after hostages started emerging from the cafe.
Initially one man emerged with his hands up and lay down on the ground in front of police. Seconds later, a group of of five hostages appeared suddenly after apparently escaping the cafe.
This appeared to be the trigger for tactical police to move in. Within seconds, they had blasted through the cafe door and opened fire with automatic weapons, also hurling what appeared to be stun grenades. The sounds of explosions echoed through the city, and the flashes of rifle fire and the grenades lit up the area.
The gunfight lasted less than two minutes, and more hostages appeared to emerge after the police raid.

So, maybe they arranged for the single hostage to come out, then 5 made a dash, which police then used to go in?

A 2-minute gunfight seems like a LONG time.

 

[HoughMade]

...A 2-minute gunfight seems like a LONG time.

That's an eternity. More likely that whatever the source for that was had a time perception issue due to the confusion. Not at all unusual.

 

[dusty88]

From CCWCooke:

Also worth pointing out that, practically speaking, ensuring good guys can carry guns is less important in a country that has few of them.

It's less important (presumably) because a gun is less likely to show up at a confrontation?

That only changes the number of statistics, not the realities.

Humans will always be in "arms races": whether that is two sides in an open conflict, or lawful citizens vs criminals, or 2 guys who got in a barfight. If your fists aren't enough, you might start grabbing objects and tools.

Restricting the ability of law-abiding citizens to have the "better arms" is contemptible.

I also think it matters not whether they had concealed-carry before. ISIS getting a few of their guys taken out by a citizen they tried to attack would be an appropriate and useful response. And at least then not just any loser who decides to "go terrorist" would get away with it.

One guy in Oklahoma may have had this terrorist philosophy on his mind when he initiated workplace violence, and his attack was stopped before he took multiple victims.

 

[dusty88]

Something strange about how this went down.

From here:
BLOODY END TO SIEGE: Two dead, including Muslim gunman and at least one hostage, as police storm Sydney cafe with assault rifles and stun grenades moments after hostages tried to flee | Daily Mail Online

News reports often get details wrong, especially in the early stages.

There are a lot of reports of "automatic" weapons.

Perhaps someone here with the right kind of training and experience can tell me if "automatic" weapons would really be used in this situation. My knee-jerk reaction is that when you only want to hit 1 person and avoid hitting everyone else, that "automatic" fire is not the way to go, and I wonder if it's even an accurate report.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, expressions about how long something took - particularly in stressful situations - is usually an opinion. Rarely is it accurate.

But, the part about the single hostage, then the group, coming out is very specific. Particularly the seemingly choreographed things he did, make it sound pre-arranged. There was some video of the windows of the assault. It did seem like the flash-bangs went off for "a long time."

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Well considering that Australia has a gun related homicide rate of .11 per 100,000 people and the US has 2.83 per 100,000, that argument will fall on deaf ears over there. There is little support over there to change the gun laws. Why do these incidents always come to this discussion? It's like you are saying," If you allow the Australians to own guns this would not have happened." It's a significantly oversimplified argument. Giving the unwilling a gun will not automatically turn sheep into sheep dogs. Overcoming anti-gun culture takes more than the introduction of guns into it. We have this issue here in the US and we are awash in guns. It's not a hardware problem. A true sheepdog is never "unarmed" regardless of availability of guns. Look at Flight 93, a plane of "unarmed" sheepdogs. Also, being armed in a hostage situation does not automatically mean you can use it. There are too many factors involved that makes a simple statement like that meaningless.

A little misleading since our homicide rate dropped at about the same rate with virtually no further restrictions.



It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

• In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

• Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
• During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
• At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
• Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.
Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," Free Republic, April 9, 2009.

 

[Kutnupe14]

A little misleading since our homicide rate dropped at about the same rate with virtually no further restrictions.



It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

• In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

• Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
• During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
• Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
• Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
• At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
• Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.
Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," Free Republic, April 9, 2009.

I don't think it's fair to say that gun bans, universally, don't work. A ban in the states may not work, but a ban in japan may. I think culture, like anything plays heavily into it. We're a long-standing gun culture, so it's insane to think of a ban here.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

From W7VOA... Of 17 hostages, 2 are dead

RIP... very unfortunate.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

I don't think it's fair to say that gun bans, universally, don't work. A ban in the states may not work, but a ban in japan may. I think culture, like anything plays heavily into it. We're a long-standing gun culture, so it's insane to think of a ban here.

Not quite sure what you'd ban in Japan, you already can't have much of anything and haven't since WWII. However their suicide rate seems to keep climbing. They don't do it with guns typically, but rope and gravity seem to be their top two methods.

My only point is to measure the effectiveness of anything all things must be considered. To state Australia's gun related homicide rate fell after the ban sounds great, but so did ours with no ban and at nearly the exact same rate.

I'll take personal freedom and responsibility for my own safety. Apparently most Americans agree with me.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

From W7VOA... Of 17 hostages, 2 are dead

RIP... very unfortunate.

Loss of life at the hands of a madman is always terrible. Hats off to the Australian police and law enforcement for ending the siege and minimizing loss of life.

 

[87iroc]

From W7VOA... Of 17 hostages, 2 are dead

RIP... very unfortunate.