Reflections on the Hostage situation in Sydney Australia

[old man emu]

Well, Britain decided to join the EU for economic reasons and abandon the Commonwealth, so it opened its doors to EU policy - open borders. Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.

Australia is a self-governing nation. Its parliaments make all the decisions for its governance and international relations. We are unique in that we have chosen to have our Head of State reside of shore. Our Head of State just happens to wear another hat at the same time, but at least it is still a Head of State job. Having a Head of State coming from a long time tradition of leadership save us from the embarrassment of having self-serving politicians make the selection of a Head of State such a murky thing. Look at the USA. The position of Head of State is bought and, having been bought, loses its ability to unite the Nation. Once elected, the US President becomes an assassination target for the other side of politics. And don't forget. Our Head of State is not the King/Queen of England. Our Head of State is the King/Queen of Australia. Big point to be aware of. Is it so bad that we avail ourselves of a thousand years of governance which were the foetus of our way of running our society?

Geoff,
The great thing about our country is that we hold dear the preservation of personal liberty. Our Bail laws have been framed in such a way to ensure that no person is deprived of Freedom as a result of a completed crime until guilt has been proven in a Court. No part of the legal system can foresee the future to tell if a person will commit offences in the future. Our hope is that conditions placed on the person as part of the bail determination will prevent further crimes. In the case of this sociopath, he was convicted of a crime which did not involve actual violence. At that time, his background suggested that he was "all talk and no action". How was the legal system to know that following his conviction he would commit indecent assaults? What were the indicators back then that he would arm himself and take hostages?

We all benefit from our current bail laws. I can remember when I was in my early 20s and mixing with blokes who liked to have a drink on Friday nights. Before the night started we all contributed to a pot of $100 which was to be used to pay bail if one of us was arrested for drink driving. It was a case of over the limit + no money for bail = night in the cells. Do you want to go back to that?

OME

[Roxy]

In any other country with less strict firearm laws, a person such as him would have been armed to the teeth with high powered semi-automatic weapons with large capacity magazines. It would also be likely that such a person would be in possession of explosives. Fulfilling either situation was impossible for this man. He did not have access to wither.

In Texas, somebody in that coffee shop would have had a Concealed Carry License. This wouldn't have turned into a hostage situation.

[Mjolinor]

In Texas, somebody in that coffee shop would have had a Concealed Carry License. This wouldn't have turned into a hostage situation.

Gunfight at the OK corral situation?

[old man emu]

Perhaps time to play my trump card. If I took hostages in a land where I knew that people regularly carried weapons - be they firearms; knives etc, or clubs - within the first moments of the seizure, I'd have made sure that everyone was disarmed. Easy enough to do when I'm holding a gun ready to fire in an instant, and my hostages are confused. How many bank robbers are killed in the USA within the bank by a civilian being held at gun point during the robbery?

The Americans, both young and old, are telling us that they accept the situation where ownership of any type of firearm is OK, and that a firearm should be used to fight fire with fire.
The British accept the ownership of firearms, with some degree of control, but don't advocate their use as a law enforcement tool.
The Australians accept ownership of firearms, with strict controls, and allow their use as a law enforcement tool under strict guidelines.
We haven't heard from Europeans, Africans or non-USA Americans.

Personally, I think firearms are sculptures in metal. They are the product of artists. I quite enjoy the rare occasions when I let off a few rounds from a borrowed rifle into a target pinned to a tree on my sister's farm. I might be tempted to go hunting for feral (non-native) animals like rabbits and pigs, or to cull plague numbers of kangaroos on cropland. I don't care to own a firearm myself because I live in a metropolitan area and needing to store it securely in a safe to comply with ownership laws is a hassle. I carried a handgun daily at work for nearly 30 years. In that time, I think I drew it only twice to provide precautionary cover for a fellow constable. I had to euthenise a few injured animals. The only times I discharged a firearm at a person was during approved training using paint ball markers.

OME

[Roxy]

How many bank robbers are killed in the USA within the bank by a civilian being held at gun point during the robbery?

In Texas: None. Banks do not allow firearms within the building unless it is being carried by a law enforcement officer. And I suspect the officer needs to be on duty but I'm not sure about that. But even so... most people feel comfortable pulling up close to the bank's front doors and going in to do their business because the bank is a fairly secure area. And many banks have drive through windows where you never need to leave your car and that area is secured also.

[old man emu]

I am going to close this thread, not because I want to stifle anyone's opinions, but I think the topic has run its course.

I also get a feeling in my water that people are getting a bit hot under the collar. and I don't want to be the spark in the powder keg.

Old Man Emu

[steved1]

In Texas, somebody in that coffee shop would have had a Concealed Carry License. This wouldn't have turned into a hostage situation.

Yah think? How did the concealed Carry license assist in the cinema shooting .........and all the many, many other incidents in the US? Have not actually heard much about "people save by someone with a CCL" If some untrained individual did start shooting on there own behalf who knows the outcome? Seems for some reason you think the outcome may have been a good one.......is that your prediction.......based on.........? If it had been in the US the idiot would have done in with a military automatic, some homespun hero without proper training takes a potshot at the gunman the gunman comes back with an AR15 and empties 150 rounds or in vey quick succession. We end up with 25 fatalities and 5 injured........that's my prediction.

We have good gun laws and leave it to professionals. Ended up sadly with two dead not including the Nutter. And you argue the US approach is better?

[Roxy]

Yah think? How did the concealed Carry license assist in the cinema shooting .........and all the many, many other incidents in the US?

Ya... I do think that... You don't seem to have done any work to get the facts straight and to understand the situation.

• First, Texas is like its own little country. The mentality here is different than in other parts of the USA. What might work well here may or may not work well other places. And vice versa.
• You don't get a Concealed Carry license by sending in 3 box tops and a self addressed envelope. There is serious classwork about the laws, defusing situations with non-lethal force and a competency test. The people with Concealed Carry licenses pretty much know what they are doing, and they most likely know and understand how to use the weapon they are carrying.
• The 'Cinema Shooting' that made all the news happened in Colorado. It turns out Colorado has a Concealed Carry License available for it's citizens. But that particular movie theater had its area posted as a No Gun zone. So, to your point, there were no law abiding citizens there with guns to assist. And as a result, the perpetrator got away with what he intended.

Now... Just for fun, lets talk about Chicago. Chicago has some of the toughest gun control laws anywhere. But strangely, Chicago has the highest murder rate anywhere. The only places with a higher murder rate are places like Mexico City, Brazil, and Baghdad. How can that be? With guns outlawed, certainly the problem just goes away, right?

Or maybe... Just maybe... that makes all of the citizens of Chicago 'soft targets'. The outlaws... The ones with guns (because guns are outlawed), know the citizens don't have guns and have no way of protecting themselves from people with guns. Perhaps... Just maybe, that emboldens the outlaws. And you get that kind of murder rate?????