Reflections on the Hostage situation in Sydney Australia

The hostage situation that occurred in a coffee shop in the CBD of Sydney, Australia has created a lot of thought here and around the world.

I've penned my reflections on the incident in an attempt to give a view of the broader picture to those of you in Europe and the Americas who may not have had much interaction with the real Australian culture.

We are cosmopolitan people, not beer swilling, kangaroo roping rednecks bereft of any cultural refinement. We are smart, resourceful and true to our friends and neighbors. We seek peace and will put ourselves in danger to help others gain it.

Please read what I have written. Please circulate it amongst your friends and colleagues. Maybe you will think more of Australia than the "Down Under " place with sun, sand and prawns on the barby.

The Lindt Coffee Shop Incident:

Attachment 4033

Old Man Emu

read the text - yep makes sense.

Although australia's current laws regarding imigrants are also some of the strictest in the world. Hell people are even rejected if they weigh too much. So while you might believe you're the world's peacekeepers - no worries - you're defintiely not welcoming to people fleeing prosecution.

And that's not a bad thing.
The uk is the target of just about every bloody refugee that makes the europaen mainland. We're dumb enough to give them housing & money & medical care.
It's why they cross germany, france, holland, spain etc just to get to the uk.

At least with australia you're far enough away from other countries that you don't get that many trying to get to you. :-)

Quote:

---

We are cosmopolitan people, not beer swilling, kangaroo roping rednecks bereft of any cultural refinement. We are smart, resourceful and true to our friends and neighbors. We seek peace and will put ourselves in danger to help others gain it.

---

Speak for yourself! (all except for the Kangaroo roping part, I find it easier to just to accelerate and knock them over..)

No but in all seriousness, this was a pretty bad day for Australia.. we don't get these sorts of things very often. Let's just hope it acts to change some of our current bail laws. This man should not have been walking free - I dare say there will now be a substantial inquiry as to how that even came to be in the first place.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old man emu

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roxy

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?

In AZ you don't need a license to carry concealed any more. So everyone has one. Something to think about before you are road raging, or running your mouth.

Suprisingly little to no gun fights with all these guns.

And yes, it's the wild west.

Question:

Have any of you who advocate the carriage of firearms in public had to discharge a firearm while under stress and been able to place your rounds as accurately as you did on the training range?

Question:

In a place where there are no restrictions on the type and number of firearms a person can have, either legally or illegally, would a nutter like ours have gone into a situation armed only with a two shot weapon? Not on your Nellie. He'd have been armed to the teeth with an array of the most destructive weapons made.

Question:

How do you manage to go about your business while carrying a concealable firearm and not have your pants fall down? I used to spend half my day hitching up my trousers when I was required to carry a S&W 38 and later a Glock 9mm.

OME

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old man emu

Question:

How do you manage to go about your business while carrying a concealable firearm and not have your pants fall down? I used to spend half my day hitching up my trousers when I was required to carry a S&W 38 and later a Glock 9mm.

---

This is small enough that weight is not an issue:

Attachment 4054

I agree that it is a very pretty object, but apart from that I don't see it as being a daily necessity.

BgHurt said: "In AZ you don't need a license to carry concealed any more. So everyone has one. Something to think about before you are road raging, or running your mouth. Suprisingly little to no gun fights with all these guns."

In Australia you don't need to carry a gun. Sure, we have road rage incidents which end in knifings, but the offender usually comes with a background in a knife culture. An Australian who would road rage or shoot off at the mouth is more likely to use fists and feet, and be under the influence if ICE for which we can thank the CIA during the Vietnam war.

So where's the answers to my other two questions?

OME

To me the word "civilised" means "able to overcome the urge to obey the natural selection urges by application of rules or other means"

It's a long winded explanation but if you think about it then I think you will agree with me.

Sadly societies where the biggest / strongest / fastest / most aggressive always win are actually sending us back down the natural selection route which is not ideal.

The aggression of fanatics of any age but particularly that shown by young males of any species have been an absolute necessity for human survival but we are now (hopefully) at a stage where we can move away from that and evolve to become something that could never happen by natural selection.

It is a very difficult thing to do, the aggression has to go somewhere, just making laws about it does not remove the urges or need that people feel and this is the problem of governments. Some realise that it is very difficult to legislate and some think that the legislation is enough to secure adherence without considering the outcome. This is where Australia and possibly Canada have the edge. In my opinion Australia is going to take the world into the next step while the rest of the world make petty rules and have stupid arguments about how bent bananas and cucumbers are to justify their six and seven figure salaries.

You can make as many laws as you like saying men are the same as women or that natives from Africa are the same as natives from England and what you end up with is a situation where I am allowed to say "that guy form Ethiopia is a brilliant runner" but I am not allowed to say "that guy from the UK is a crap runner" because we are now all the same. Women do not swing pick axes as well as men, no one does mathematics as well as Pakistanis, no one runs like the Eastern African natives but legally we are all the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old man emu

Question:
Have any of you who advocate the carriage of firearms in public had to discharge a firearm while under stress and been able to place your rounds as accurately as you did on the training range?

---

If you are going to use lethal force, you have to use it wisely. But let's ignore that for a moment. Let's just talk about this situation. Some self righteous fanatic decides he is going to make a statement to the world and jacks up a coffee shop.

If I was in that coffee shop I would not want to be without any self defense. And let's talk about exactly that situation: In the end, after 12 hours, 2 hostage are dead along with the perpetrator. Why? Because they were all unarmed, and desperate. When they thought they saw him falling asleep they rushed him. How did that work out for them?

It would have really sucked to be there, but with that mini-revolver in my pocket, I would not have had to rush him. I could pick the time of my choice and make my move. I would not have to over power him (which I could not do). I would just have to out smart him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old man emu

So where's the answers to my other two questions?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old man emu

Question:

In a place where there are no restrictions on the type and number of firearms a person can have, either legally or illegally, would a nutter like ours have gone into a situation armed only with a two shot weapon? Not on your Nellie. He'd have been armed to the teeth with an array of the most destructive weapons made.

---

Same answer as above. First, lets look at the facts. This nut case obviously knew he was going to do this. He planned for it. But he planned so well that he needed to ask the authorities to bring him an ISIS flag. He wasn't smart enough to remember to get that in advance and bring it with him. So right there, your assertion that he would be prepared as well as a Seal Team is questionable.

Suppose he had rifles, rocket launchers as well as hand guns. And in fact, he is so well prepared that he is wearing a bullet proof vest. I guess what that means is I would wish I had a different gun. With that said, if that mini-revolver was in my pocket, I would make due. If he turned his back to me and was within 10 feet, that mini-revolver would equal all the rifles, rocket launchers and hand guns he brought with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mjolinor

You can make as many laws as you like saying men are the same as women or that natives from Africa are the same as natives from England and what you end up with is a situation where I am allowed to say "that guy form Ethiopia is a brilliant runner" but I am not allowed to say "that guy from the UK is a crap runner" because we are now all the same. Women do not swing pick axes as well as men, no one does mathematics as well as Pakistanis, no one runs like the Eastern African natives but legally we are all the same.

---

Well, the solution to that is not have laws that are so specific that they have to take a person's individual abilities into account. Once law gets into that kind of micromanagement, it needs to be reconsidered altogether.

Having a problem with say, laws that necessarily have to treat men and women differently because they deal with reproduction? Maybe time to rethink what the hell business the government has even being in that field of human behavior in the first place.

As for the big gun legality debate, I don't carry one personally, and haven't owned one for a very long time, but I appreciate the psychological effect that the possibility of legally and secretly armed citizens has on the criminal. It tends to contain their crimes to places that are "gun free" for non-criminals, where people can easily avoid if they can help it.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old man emu

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.

One of my favorites on this subject...

Attachment 4066

As a kid, like most kids I loved guns, Rambo, Commando... but as an adult, I really have no desire to get one, and living in the country the only reason I would have one is as OME said, to put injured animals out of their misery.

However, as of today, so soon after, we have an even worse tragedy that hit us. Seven children murdered in their house, stabbed to death. Now while I felt for the cafe hostages, this really has made me quite sad. It's still early so we don't know much of the detail, but it is truly a horrible day in Cairns...

http://www.news.com.au/national/quee...-1227161862831

Geoff,

I wonder if there is a family link to SamThaiday the Rugby League footballer. He's from up that way, isn't he?

ROXY,
I'm scratching my head over this one:
"In Texas: None. Banks do not allow firearms within the building unless it is being carried by a law enforcement officer"
To me that is an open invitation to do an armed hold-up. No one in the bank is going to be armed if you don't go in on lawmen's pay day.

OME

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old man emu

ROXY,
I'm scratching my head over this one:
"In Texas: None. Banks do not allow firearms within the building unless it is being carried by a law enforcement officer"
To me that is an open invitation to do an armed hold-up. No one in the bank is going to be armed if you don't go in on lawmen's pay day.

---

Well... Remember... Things evolved to get to where they are today. A long time ago, before I was born, it was common to have armed police officers standing by the door of banks (as employees of the bank). But as society got more and more tame, and electronic surveillance got better and better, that became unnecessary. Pretty soon the bank branches would only have enough cash on hand to handle normal business during the day. If you needed a bunch of cash, you would have to schedule the withdrawal a day or two in advance. Mean while, remember the bank's safe is on a clock and can only be opened at certain times.

Then cash ATM (Automatic Teller Machines) start appearing everywhere. This makes it much less necessary for a bank to have lots of cash because the distribution of cash gets spread out everywhere. And when video surveillance became cheap and easy, banks were the first to have records of everything. Now, the banks have exploding dye packs and GPS trackers included in any money they handout during a robbery. And the police can get not only the bank's camera feeds but surveillance video from red light cameras and convenience stores in the area.

If somebody robs a bank, it is very likely there won't be a shoot out at the bank. But it is also very unlikely the robbers get very far away without being abducted. In fact, they are probably not even out of the bank before the police are informed that there is a crime in progress. So... The banks have elected to be a 'No Gun Zone'. Just as some places of worship have made the same decision. When the Concealed Carry legislation got approved in Texas, part of it was the ability of a business (like a bank for example) to declare themselves a 'No Gun Zone'.

Australians admit 1 in 5 have a mental illness. In America no one is mentally ill... We're all insane, or all creative geniuses - take your pick.

Sorry to hear of both tragedies. Oz makes it hard to be an illegal alien. USA makes it easy.

Used to live in Neutral Bay & Surfers Paradise. Used to Live in London, so as an American I see all sides, just don't become as insane as America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roxy

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steved1

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?????

It would be interesting to compare the rates of "Stranger" murders in places that have strict gun laws with those where gun possession is less restricted.

I have to make the distinction between murders committed by persons who have no relationship with the victim and those murders committed in what might be called "domestic relationships". In Australia, very few murders are committed using firearms, and the majority of those that are committed with firearms would fall into the class of "Stranger" murders - most often drug supply related.

I'll throw in another bone to chew.

The image that the USA projects to the world is one of a very violent society where resolution of conflict comes from the barrel of a gun. Media reports of incidents are a very small part of this projection. It appears that the USA culture imbues its people with an acceptance of violence from the time a child emerges from the cradle. I find that a great number of cartoon programs in the children's TV categories are very violent. To these can be added programs with human actors such as the Marvel Comics franchise. Then there is the adult television area. Just check how many times firearms are used to resolve situations in the US crime genre. If you compare that to English and Australian crime shows, you would think that any firearms seen in programs from the latter two countries would be blocked with rust due to lack of use. Also, the story lines of computer games are almost totally centred on the use of violence or other unlawful activities.

While the right to freedom of speech is to be defended, that right comes with heavy responsibilities. Let a scriptwriter produce a story for visual or digital media, but make him take responsibility for the effects of his story on society. You might raise the point of Free Will exercised by the user of the story. But what happens when that Free Will has been molded by years of exposure to media violence? Two Policemen sitting in their patrol car get blown away by someone who believes that the use of violence is the justifiable way to exercise freedom of expression.

Old Man Emu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old man emu

Two Policemen sitting in their patrol car get blown away by someone who believes that the use of violence is the justifiable way to exercise freedom of expression.

---

Agreed there is too much violence on TV and in comic books. That definitely desensitizes people to violence and helps train them to use guns as a solution to their problems.

But what happened to those two police officers was not an expression of free speech. It probably has much more to do with people not believing the police are their friend and there to protect them. When people start using phrases like "Hands up! Don't shoot!" and "I can't breath!" as a rally call, perhaps there is something else going on.

Hey! I have an idea! How about the police lead by example? If they want everybody to lay down their guns and not use violence, how about the police take the first step and they all go on duty without firearms? My guess is they would say "We don't want to be vulnerable like that." But of course, they don't care if the average citizen is vulnerable like that because of gun control laws. Right?

Here is a bonus question for you: In the Sydney Coffee Shop Hostage situation... We can't ask the two that died rushing the crazy person. But probably we know how they would answer this next question. Let's just stick with the survivors. Did any of the survivors wish they had a 'Concealed Carry License'? My guess is half of them would say they wish they had one and if one was available, they would go get one now.

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