Bondi Beach today. 12 confirmed dead and counting...

38 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Bondi Beach today. 12 confirmed dead and

BBC News

Bondi Beach: Eleven killed in shooting targeting Australi...

A further 29 people have been taken to hospital and one gunman was also killed, NSW Police have told a news conference.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ckgk391yzm7t

Contains a couple of clips including one of bystander wrestling one of the gunmen for his weapon.

Took some stones did that.

12 minutes ago, gregbwfc1 said:

Took some stones did that.

Sure did. No one really knows how they will behave in that type of situation until they are thrown into one. That dude saved some lives.

15 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

Mass shooting at Brown tonight. Numbers still aren't in but it doesn't look good.

2 dead. 9 shot. Some critical. Person of interest in custody but that took all night.

For all you 2nd amendment gun nuts, I have yet to see an armed citizen step in and stop a mass shooting. Meanwhile in Australia, shooter disarmed by a citizen, and all he used was not being a little bish.

https://www.google.com/search?sa=X&sca_esv=d499cf97fcbe8b52&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS1086US1087&sxsrf=AE3TifNDvR6UDOkBfk92nDfU_3wo_gp1yQ:1765725777648&udm=7&fbs=AIIjpHxEM2g5NLr6Yg6sZdDot2WWTOZVg9x_1zPi1tnFDSjOLgoeaA1QZitOoa6UkOJwCwPtZkEDV9QemEwshGXCd0mzQ9VKiniKvrAt-KQr-X8wFreWmmFD4FtTe08JgpUFsBDWaAeI8yJin490javie4oM_KtXgdMkWeplN1v-VxyaQMhoBHhSieX3fChv7KZ_BrC0gUoichu2GRB3w68uPS1o6mKnLmUS87troAh2CXf_iTp36bo&q=australia+shooting+bondi+beach+shooter+disarmed&ved=2ahUKEwi9lP2Nsb2RAxWDyMkDHdIeHlgQtKgLegQIDhAB&biw=1745&bih=870&dpr=1.1#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:d479e03a,vid:M8w7mv2ROzQ,st:0

FYI. Australia banned widespread gun ownership in the late 1990s after a massacre, and ownership is in theory controlled heavily. To say it was surprising, is an understatement. Its reported one shooter had a legal gun license, but confirmed.

The Aussie PM (Anthony Albanese "Albo" is getting roasted on social media. He's a southern hemisphere Keir. You can replace his name with Starmer's name and not see a difference

Naughty words included

6 hours ago, Lambo said:

For all you 2nd amendment gun nuts, I have yet to see an armed citizen step in and stop a mass shooting.

It’s actually happened a bunch of times.

From a criminology standpoint, use of force of any kind lowers the number of deaths in an active shooter. Active shooters pick their targets based on an anticipated lack of defense, so when they get force used against them, it throws them for a loop because they weren’t expecting any force against them.

But yeah, concealed carry holders in the US have stopped this kind of thing before. Australia has super strict gun control, and it didn’t stop ish.

21 minutes ago, Bill said:

It’s actually happened a bunch of times.

From a criminology standpoint, use of force of any kind lowers the number of deaths in an active shooter. Active shooters pick their targets based on an anticipated lack of defense, so when they get force used against them, it throws them for a loop because they weren’t expecting any force against them.

But yeah, concealed carry holders in the US have stopped this kind of thing before. Australia has super strict gun control, and it didn’t stop ish.

They also have less than 1/10 the gun deaths per capita. So in this incident no it didn't stop crap, but to dunk on their gun control laws cause of this is kinda silly.

52 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

They also have less than 1/10 the gun deaths per capita. So in this incident no it didn't stop crap, but to dunk on their gun control laws cause of this is kinda silly.

Yeah, but they’re also a smaller pop homogeneous country and their gun death rate was already trending down before they did their big ban.

People tend to look at it narrowly from a point of view of just the legality of guns, but crime is a broad spectrum of causes. As an example, people hone in on guns themselves when they compare the US to other western countries, but they don’t look at other variables, the most glaring one being access to health care.

6 minutes ago, Bill said:

Yeah, but they’re also a smaller pop homogeneous country and their gun death rate was already trending down before they did their big ban.

People tend to look at it narrowly from a point of view of just the legality of guns, but crime is a broad spectrum of causes. As an example, people hone in on guns themselves when they compare the US to other western countries, but they don’t look at other variables, the most glaring one being access to health care.

Oh it's multifactorial for sure. Won't argue that with you there. Nor is the US and Australia able to be directly compared, wasn't trying to argue that either. But the drop in firearm homicide and suicide rates were like 50% after the ban in 96. The mass shooting rate way more than that. Even if we accept that not all of that is from the ban itself, it has a pretty major impact for them. In spite of what happened yesterday.

6 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Oh it's multifactorial for sure. Won't argue that with you there. Nor is the US and Australia able to be directly compared, wasn't trying to argue that either. But the drop in firearm homicide and suicide rates were like 50% after the ban in 96. The mass shooting rate way more than that. Even if we accept that not all of that is from the ban itself, it has a pretty major impact for them. In spite of what happened yesterday.

It took two years for the "precipitous” drop you speak of, but even then the per capita rate went from just north of 2.5/100k to just under 2/100k. Their gun death rate was trending downward for a decade and a half to begin with before they enacted the ‘96 ban. Gun deaths didn’t evaporate overnight. If you look between ‘81 and ‘96 and ‘96 to present day, the rate of changes between the two periods are remarkably similar.

And then there’s other factors that could be at play as well after ‘96 with regards to increased awareness of mental health, criminology, etc. It’s something that would require multiple comprehensive peer-reviewed studies to get better insights versus looking at one data point over time.

19 minutes ago, Bill said:

It took two years for the "precipitous” drop you speak of, but even then the per capita rate went from just north of 2.5/100k to just under 2/100k. Their gun death rate was trending downward for a decade and a half to begin with before they enacted the ‘96 ban. Gun deaths didn’t evaporate overnight. If you look between ‘81 and ‘96 and ‘96 to present day, the rate of changes between the two periods are remarkably similar.

And then there’s other factors that could be at play as well after ‘96 with regards to increased awareness of mental health, criminology, etc. It’s something that would require multiple comprehensive peer-reviewed studies to get better insights versus looking at one data point over time.

They were at 2.9 in 96 and it's currently somewhere less than 1/100,000k so the drop continued well beyond that 2 year period and is more than the drop from 81 (4.2) to 96. Trying to pretend the drop has nothing to do with the ban is silly.

11 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

Bondi Beach today. 12 confirmed dead and counting...

Religion of peace strikes again.

46 minutes ago, BDawk_ASamuel said:

Religion of peace strikes again.

You can always count on it sooner or later

The second biggest lie perpetrated against the global population.....

5 hours ago, Bill said:

Australia has super strict gun control, and it didn’t stop ish.

This is survivorship bias. There was an attack at a mall in Australia last year where someone went on a rampage stabbing several people. If he gets access to a gun, do you think he kills more people or less than he did with a knife?

3 hours ago, Bill said:

they’re also a smaller pop homogeneous country

Just like they've always been, this is a factor that's already controlled for and thus irrelevant to his point about the drop in gun deaths.

5 hours ago, Bill said:

Australia has super strict gun control, and it didn’t stop ish.

3 hours ago, Bill said:

And then there’s other factors that could be at play as well after ‘96 with regards to increased awareness of mental health, criminology, etc. It’s something that would require multiple comprehensive peer-reviewed studies to get better insights versus looking at one data point over time.

This kind of elite back pedal could land you a job at corner on any NFL team.

Look I get Bill's point. A lot of gun control arguments are disingenuous coming from a place of emotion to prove a predetermined point, rather than looking at facts. But both sides do it.

Do multiple factors contribute to Australia's STARK drop in gun violence, deaths and mass shooting over the past 30 years? Yes absolutely. Do I think we need do massive research studies to determine that stricter gun laws had something to do with the drop of more than 50% considering that general trend exists essentially everywhere in the western world? Absolutely not. Furthermore we were literally banned from using federal funding to research gun violence until 2019 due to the Dickey Amendment, ironically signed into law in 1996. Claiming we need more research to determine causality while banning research into it is bordering on MAGA logic.

17 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

This kind of elite back pedal could land you a job at corner on any NFL team.

Ok.

20 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

They were at 2.9 in 96 and it's currently somewhere less than 1/100,000k so the drop continued well beyond that 2 year period and is more than the drop from 81 (4.2) to 96. Trying to pretend the drop has nothing to do with the ban is silly.

So the gun ban happened in the middle of a downward trend, and the average rate of change over a period of a decade and a half went from 1.3 to 1.9, which is a statistically significant change of .6/100k in a country that has a population of 27 mil.

Not to mention that the total number of firearms in Australia is actually higher now than it was pre-‘96.

1 minute ago, Bill said:

So the gun ban happened in the middle of a downward trend, and the average rate of change over a period of a decade and a half went from 1.3 to 1.9, which is a statistically significant change of .6/100k in a country that has a population of 27 mil.

Not to mention that the total number of firearms in Australia is actually higher now than it was pre-‘96.

Right it increased the rate at which gun deaths dropped even though you tried to claim it was the same. It wasn't. They also passed several significant gun laws in the 80s after a few mass shootings. They were just state based whereas but major registration and licensing changes, mandatory training programs, a lot of the same stuff the 96 laws made federal. So I'm not sure you're helping your argument here.

The 96 Australian gun law impact has been studied in depth by the likes of the NIH and JAMA. The same difference is seen in European countries with stricter gun laws vs those that don't. And in the US states with stricter gun laws. I don't know why you're fighting the obvious so strongly. You can be pro 2A and still recognize there is a pretty clear downside as well.