Mass shooting at Bondi Beach

[Planigale]

"Mediated"?

They don't have to target Jews. Islamists consider ANYONE who is not Muslim a target. They tar all of us with the same brush of hatred. While their hatred for the Jews is stronger and more fanatical, don't fool yourself into thinking they don't hate us as well. If you are a Jew, a Christian, a Hindu, or if you are apostate, you have a target on your head. Once Islamists have achieved their stated aim of exterminating every Jew on the planet (from the river to the sea, remember?), they'll get to the rest of us soon enough!

Never forget, you're dealing with people who will murder each other over the length of their beards, the type of fabric in their clothes and the way those clothes are made.

I am well aware. In fact the greatest target of Sunni groups such as ISIS are Shia muslims. So you could say they are very 'catholic' in their ideology they attack Shia muslims, Europeans (including Americans and Australians), minority groups e.g. Yazidi; Israelis / Jews are well down their list of victims.

 

[lionking]

I know nothing about those officers. I don't know if they were DEI hires, I don't know if they're unqualified to serve, I don't know if it was inadequate or faulty training. We've seen male officers fail to act too, so I'm not going to assume that the problem is that they were women.

But this absolutely was a failure on the part of the police. Something went wrong for them to not try to take down the shooters. The public deserves to know what went wrong, why it went wrong, and what's going to be done about it to keep it from happening again.

I know they were qualified because unlike so many US cowboy police forces, it is difficult to get into the academy and police are trained for about 2 years before being confirmed as a constable.

“Absolutely” a failure? Both were taken down. But guess what, we will get to know. There will be several investigations by bodies not connected to the police or government, including the Coroner.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Acknowledging the inevitability of retaliation is not the same as excusing it.

It's not inevitable retaliation. FFS, Russia attacking Ukraine in europe would not make it inevitable that a person of Russian descent living in Mexico will be attacked and killed. It's a despicable excuse for the normalization of antisocial behavior.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Not according to the Grauniad (make of that what you will).

‘It was a matter of conscience’: Ahmed al-Ahmed’s family reveal why he risked his life to disarm alleged Bondi shooter

Family say al-Ahmed ‘doesn’t discriminate’ and would have done anything to save lives during the attack

www.theguardian.com

I've seen Ahmed Al Ahmad and Ahmed Al Ahmed on the ABC.

But in other news, a fundraiser for him has raised $500,000 in 12 hours. He may be disabled now from the bullets in his arm.

Parents praise 'hero' son for tackling gunman during Bondi Beach attack

The ABC has spoken to the parents of Ahmed Al Ahmed who was shot after he heroically wrestled and disarmed one of the Bondi Beach attackers.

www.abc.net.au

 

[angrysoba]

If you trust a man with a shotgun, why does it matter if it's one of six? If you trust a man with a shotgun, but you don't trust his son, how is that his problem? Why should he give up his lawful privileges just because you don't like the look of his offspring?

Well, you may trust a man with a shotgun, but if he has six he can hand out five of them to people who you don’t trust. I would presume there would be a number of guns that would raise an eyebrow, no? If he bought ten guns or twenty guns or one hundred guns, wouldn’t it make sense to wonder what he’s up to?

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, you may trust a man with a shotgun, but if he has six he can hand out five of them to people who you don’t trust.

Then why do you trust him, if he's willing to hand out shotguns to people you don't trust? Sounds like he's not actually trustworthy.

 

[theprestige]

Acknowledging the inevitability of retaliation is not the same as excusing it.

There's nothing inevitable about Jews in Australia being mass-murdered in retaliation for Israel's prosecuting a war against Hamas on the other side of the planet. You're just trying to shift the blame from Australian Muslims to the Israeli government. If anyone has made this horror "inevitable", it's the Australian Muslims who carried it out, and their immediate Australian-Muslim community that failed to properly socialize them. With perhaps a minor role played by Australians in general, who seemed to have formed themselves a society that allows such murderous values to fester in their Australian Muslim communities. Perhaps it's inevitable that Muslims in Australia would utterly fail to assimilate Australia's general value of not doing gun violence.

 

[theprestige]

Well, you may trust a man with a shotgun, but if he has six he can hand out five of them to people who you don’t trust.

I.e., you don't trust him with a shotgun, and should stop pretending you do.

I would presume there would be a number of guns that would raise an eyebrow, no? If he bought ten guns or twenty guns or one hundred guns, wouldn’t it make sense to wonder what he’s up to?

If I didn't trust him to collect guns through legal means, I wouldn't have trusted him to collect even a single gun through legal means.

Why should it be any of my business, to indulge in anything more than idle curiosity about, what hobbies a law-abiding citizen lawfully spends his time and money on?

The Australian position on gun ownership is pretty clear: No gun ownership by default, but you can appeal to the state for an exception. Once you've made an exception, you've made an exception. I don't see any room there for "by default, we don't trust you with a gun, but we'll make an exception, but we won't trust you, but we will trust you, but we won't, but we will."

If you don't trust a man to have six shotguns, then you bloody well shouldn't have trusted him to have even one of the damn things.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Moving away from Australian gun laws they are turning on 'DEI' and women being useless police officers.

One of many similar

AF Post
@AFpost
An image from the Bondi Beach shooting shows a female cop freezing up during the attack.
As the Bondi Beach terror attack unfolded and shots rang out, the four policemen on the scene froze, according to a witness

https://twitter.com/x/status/2000305451356041263

That photo seems unlikely to have been taken during or immediately after the attack. Particularly the very casual pedestrians...

 

[Andy_Ross]

Well, you may trust a man with a shotgun, but if he has six he can hand out five of them to people who you don’t trust. I would presume there would be a number of guns that would raise an eyebrow, no? If he bought ten guns or twenty guns or one hundred guns, wouldn’t it make sense to wonder what he’s up to?

When I was doing a lot of shooting back in the 80s and 90s, I had two pistols, four rifles and two shotguns.
That's in the UK where as we know guns are banned.

 

[Norman Alexander]

The Australian position on gun ownership is pretty clear: No gun ownership by default, but you can appeal to the state for an exception. Once you've made an exception, you've made an exception. I don't see any room there for "by default, we don't trust you with a gun, but we'll make an exception, but we won't trust you, but we will trust you, but we won't, but we will."

Strawmanning.

If you don't trust a man to have six shotguns, then you bloody well shouldn't have trusted him to have even one of the damn things.

I think we got to that position some pages ago. Keep up!

 

[angrysoba]

Then why do you trust him, if he's willing to hand out shotguns to people you don't trust? Sounds like he's not actually trustworthy.

I.e., you don't trust him with a shotgun, and should stop pretending you do.


If I didn't trust him to collect guns through legal means, I wouldn't have trusted him to collect even a single gun through legal means.

Why should it be any of my business, to indulge in anything more than idle curiosity about, what hobbies a law-abiding citizen lawfully spends his time and money on?

The Australian position on gun ownership is pretty clear: No gun ownership by default, but you can appeal to the state for an exception. Once you've made an exception, you've made an exception. I don't see any room there for "by default, we don't trust you with a gun, but we'll make an exception, but we won't trust you, but we will trust you, but we won't, but we will."

If you don't trust a man to have six shotguns, then you bloody well shouldn't have trusted him to have even one of the damn things.

When I was doing a lot of shooting back in the 80s and 90s, I had two pistols, four rifles and two shotguns.
That's in the UK where as we know guns are banned.

Trust does not have to be all or nothing. You can be trusted to own a gun and still be limited in your use of them. I just had a look and noticed that there are a number of jurisdictions where there are limits to how many guns you can have.

As you may know I live in Japan, where guns can under very strict rules be owned by people. I used to teach an old guy who had once owned a gun but one day the police came and took it away because it wasn’t being sufficiently used and therefore broke some rules on stockpiling.

You can disagree with it but it is not crazy or incoherent to have rules about stockpiling in addition to rules about simple ownership.

For my student’s part he was incensed at the idea that the state did not trust him to look after a gun properly although he had told me two stories in which he pointed the loaded rifle in people’s faces, once in anger at a shooting range and once in jest pretending to threaten a friend unaware that there was a live round in the chamber.

 

[arthwollipot]

Are you saying he is wrong, that Australia has done a lot to counter antisemitism?

Having lived with someone who contracted for security agencies on antiterrorism projects, including the Sydney Olympics in 2000, yes, he is wrong about that.

Ok, what has your country done?

Most of it is classified.

I think you are missing the point. The main issue to me is not where the guns came from and how they got here, it’s that the guns were registered and legally held. Each State has slightly different registration systems, but it just defies belief that the father had 6 weapons when his son was monitored for connection with ISIS.

People go on about Australia's gun laws, but they miss the fact that gun restrictions have been gradually but steadily loosened in the years since Port Arthur, and there are now more guns circulating now than there were in the late 90s.

Bureaucratic incompetence is the most believable thing in the world.

While this is absolutely true, the watering-down of the strong restrictions after Port Arthur was very deliberate and at the state parliamentary level, via activists like David Leyonhjelm and the rise of the Shooters and Fishers party.

But this absolutely was a failure on the part of the police. Something went wrong for them to not try to take down the shooters. The public deserves to know what went wrong, why it went wrong, and what's going to be done about it to keep it from happening again.

The police did take down the shooters. What the hell are you talking about?

Clearly the problem is that it's faster to switch weapons than to reload. Australia should pass a law requiring that it take at least 10.8 seconds to switch weapons.

What's actually being proposed is a restriction on the number of weapons a person can own, amongst other proposals.

What's special about that qualifier? How is Australia different from the places where it has happened before? If it's happened before in places that are basically equivalent to Australia, then you should expect it to happen in Australia as well.

Well, because we're talking about Australia. This attack happened in Australia, and it's what we're talking about.

I'm not, and you know it. You know perfectly well that the so-called "religion of peace" is Islam.

Apart from a tiny and dangerous lunatic fringe, it is a religion of peace. The vast majority of the over 2 billion Muslims in the world are extremely peaceful.

There's nothing inevitable about Jews in Australia being mass-murdered in retaliation for Israel's prosecuting a war against Hamas on the other side of the planet. You're just trying to shift the blame from Australian Muslims to the Israeli government. If anyone has made this horror "inevitable", it's the Australian Muslims who carried it out, and their immediate Australian-Muslim community that failed to properly socialize them. With perhaps a minor role played by Australians in general, who seemed to have formed themselves a society that allows such murderous values to fester in their Australian Muslim communities. Perhaps it's inevitable that Muslims in Australia would utterly fail to assimilate Australia's general value of not doing gun violence.

Did you forget this?

I'm not blaming the victims. What could I blame them for? Being Jewish? No. The blame for the attacks is entirely on the father and son who made the conscious decision to take their licensed firearms out of their storage, travel to where they knew a Chanukah festival had started, and open fire on the crowd. Nobody is to blame but them. Nobody.

I hope that's clear and you can stop making scurrilous accusations against me. Please acknowledge that you have understood.

 

[theprestige]

Trust does not have to be all or nothing. You can be trusted to own a gun and still be limited in your use of them.

I'm inclined to agree in principle. However, I haven't yet come up with (or seen) a coherent argument for how a person can be trusted with one gun, but can't be trusted with two or three guns on the same basis of trustworthiness. It just seems like a really weird and arbitrary place to draw a line around your comfort zone.

I just had a look and noticed that there are a number of jurisdictions where there are limits to how many guns you can have.

Yeah, well there are a lot of jurisdictions with weird, contradictory, counter-productive, or just pants-on-head retarded rules.

If I told you there were tons of jurisdictions that don't put any limits at all on the number of guns you can own, you wouldn't suddenly decide I have a point about trusting people with more than one gun. So don't do me the discourtesy of pretending your appeal to popularity has any merit here.

As you may know I live in Japan, where guns can under very strict rules be owned by people. I used to teach an old guy who had once owned a gun but one day the police came and took it away because it wasn’t being sufficiently used and therefore broke some rules on stockpiling.

"... or just pants-on-head retarded rules."

You can disagree with it but it is not crazy or incoherent to have rules about stockpiling in addition to rules about simple ownership.

I think it very much is incoherent to say you trust someone to own firearms, but simultaneously do not trust them to own firearms. One man's "stockpile" is another man's collection. Trust is trust. If you don't trust collectors to have gun collections, then you shouldn't be trusting them with any guns at all. It's not really a middle ground kind of thing.

 

[theprestige]

What's actually being proposed is a restriction on the number of weapons a person can own, amongst other proposals.

Why don't Australians just make it illegal to murder Jews during Hannukah? Are they stupid?

Did you forget this?

No, I did not. You pay lip service to certain ideals, but dedicate the meat of your rhetoric to upholding a double standard that consistently demands that Jews assume the burden of the moral failings of their enemies.

You say you blame the killers, here. But you also say these killings were inevitable, and that they were provoked by the actions of others, who should take the blame for that provocation. None of that is compatible with blaming the killers, so I conclude you don't really mean to blame the killers. That's just pro forma virtue signaling from you, an attempt at a fig leaf for your actual thesis: Jews made this happen.

To be clear: You can't simultaneously say that a murder was inevitable, and that you blame the murderer. If this were a one-off, I might charitably assume that you meant to blame the murderer, and didn't really mean "inevitable" in the full sense of the word. But I've been following your rhetoric on this subject for quite some time, and it's pretty clear that when you cough up such rhetorical contradictions as this, you mean for them to be resolved in favor of inevitability, not personal responsibility. And you always always always deploy the inevitability rhetoric when it means indicting Jews for the acts of others.

 

[lionking]

I'm inclined to agree in principle. However, I haven't yet come up with (or seen) a coherent argument for how a person can be trusted with one gun, but can't be trusted with two or three guns on the same basis of trustworthiness. It just seems like a really weird and arbitrary place to draw a line around your comfort zone.


Yeah, well there are a lot of jurisdictions with weird, contradictory, counter-productive, or just pants-on-head retarded rules.

If I told you there were tons of jurisdictions that don't put any limits at all on the number of guns you can own, you wouldn't suddenly decide I have a point about trusting people with more than one gun. So don't do me the discourtesy of pretending your appeal to popularity has any merit here.


"... or just pants-on-head retarded rules."


I think it very much is incoherent to say you trust someone to own firearms, but simultaneously do not trust them to own firearms. One man's "stockpile" is another man's collection. Trust is trust. If you don't trust collectors to have gun collections, then you shouldn't be trusting them with any guns at all. It's not really a middle ground kind of thing.

Also bollocks.

You must know that self defence is not a reason for owning a firearm in Australia. You may think that is “pants on the head retarded rules”, but you must already know what Australians think of the US gun culture, with a 10 times higher gun mortality rate.

We just need to strengthen our laws to restrict gun ownership further. People who say “but I need a big, powerful, rapid fire gun for hunting/my gun club/killer kangaroos” can then be told “bad luck mate”.

 

[EHocking]

Not according to the Grauniad (make of that what you will).

‘It was a matter of conscience’: Ahmed al-Ahmed’s family reveal why he risked his life to disarm alleged Bondi shooter

Family say al-Ahmed ‘doesn’t discriminate’ and would have done anything to save lives during the attack

www.theguardian.com

You’re correcting a spelling mistake by quoting the Grauniad?

 

[theprestige]

Also bollocks.

You must know that self defence is not a reason for owning a firearm in Australia.

I didn't say it was. I didn't even say it should be.

You may think that is “pants on the head retarded rules”, but you must already know what Australians think of the US gun culture, with a 10 times higher gun mortality rate.

So much for the appeal to popularity.

We just need to strengthen our laws to restrict gun ownership further. People who say “but I need a big, powerful, rapid fire gun for hunting/my gun club/killer kangaroos” can then be told “bad luck mate”.

Somehow I don't think this was the loophole the killers used in this case.

 

[Trausti]

We just need to strengthen our laws to restrict gun ownership further.

To respond to Islamic terror by further limiting your civil liberties is just bizarro.

 

[Trausti]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2000711991913046461