'Run, run, run': Chaos at a Sydney mall as 6 people stabbed to death, and the suspect fatally shot
A man stabbed six people to death at a busy Sydney shopping center Saturday before he was fatally shot, police said, with hundreds fleeing the chaotic scene, many weeping as they carried their children. Eight people, including a 9-month-old, were injured.
New South Wales police said they believed a 40-year-old man was responsible for the Saturday afternoon attack at the Westfield Shopping Centre in Bondi Junction, in the city’s eastern suburbs and not far from the world-famous Bondi Beach. They said they were not able to name him until a formal identification had taken place but that they weren’t treating the attack as terrorism-related.
The man was shot dead by a police inspector after he turned and raised a knife, New South Wales Assistant Police Commissioner Anthony Cooke told reporters.
Why? Less people would have probably died. Automatics are stupid hard to shoot accurately. The military uses them for suppression even. They're not designed to be accurate just to keep the enemy down.
Brainworms. Fuck your freedum bullshit, we don't want or need your sick gun culture in Australia.
Better to have knife culture :P
Of course - any sane person would see that.
Cool the UK said the same thing, and now they have bans on knives in public. Just as Australia has bans on paintball guns and airsoft. The Overton window keeps getting pushed to one extreme or the other.
Like flies on shit, you cunts turn up after every tragedy around the world, trying to convince us to have MORE death in society. You sicken me.
You do know more guns are in civilian hands in Australia now than before the 96 forced confiscation.
Bullshit that you keep repeating doesn't make it true. The legislation our govt passed in the wake of the Port Arthur tragedy makes our country a safer place for everyone.
https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australia-more-guns-now-than-before-port-arthur/
Uhh ok, facts don't matter to most of you I see
Did you read the article, or are just cherrypicking a headline that suits your agenda? The article states that we have more guns in the hands of fewer shooters. Not great, but at least we're keeping guns out of the wrong hands. Australia licences guns appropriately, so hunters, farmers and hobbyists can still access the firearms that they need to. Your headline isn't the mic drop you think it is.
I didn't cherry pick anything. I said there are more guns in civilian hands than before the 96 laws. It's not that hard to understand, or do you like to just ignore that you said there weren't.
Your implication is that our gun culture is getting more like the US, which thankfully isn't the case. Yes, I was surprised and dismayed by the stats, but as I stated above, less people in Australia own guns now than in '96, which is great news.
That wasn't my implication at all, it was literally pointing out that you have more guns there now. Nothing more nothing less. I seriously hope you don't get to the NRA level here, to many FUDDs and idiots own firearms when they shouldn't at all.
The UK has a violence problem - but that problem would be so much fucking worse if there were guns involved.
You already have it. You now have more firearms in civilian hands than before the 1996 ban.
that's why militaries around the world have lately switched to knifes as primary service weapons and trained their soldiers like the ninjas of old
fucking brain rot
Where did I say anything like that? I was pointing out that automatic weapons have shit accuracy. It's not my fault you can't understand that.
And you need laser perfect accuracy to fire into a crowd of people? Are you fucking mentally disabled?
To kill yes, wound no. Bullets don't magically aim themselves at vital organs.
If you're hit in the torso, there's a strong chance that you're dead if you don't get immediate care. Lungs, heart, liver, kidney, stomach, everything is in there. You don't need to magically aim. And this isn't a conversation of accuracy in automatic vs semi automatic. Thats a stupid strawman argument of bringing up something completely irrelevant. You're being pedantic. There would be dozens more dead if the guy had a gun instead of a knife. And you're a fool if you believe otherwise.
No it's not. Firearm injuries far outnumbered the homicides
https://health.ucdavis.edu/what-you-can-do/facts.html
15k~ homicides vs 115k non-fatal injuries.
Killing someone with a firearm is not as easy as the media likes to portrait it.
Oh, the guns aren't lethal. IT'S OK EVERYONE, THE GUNS ARE SAFE! SOME FUCKWIT TOLD ME SO ONLINE, WE WERE ALL WRONG!
I guess this fuckwit hit a nerve...
Yeah buddy knife injuries far out weigh knife deaths too. It's the severity of the deaths and injuries, and if you have intent to kill you're going to kill more with a gun
if you're trolling, I congratulate the bit
if not, holy shit dude, get a grip
Ikr imagine being this dense,
This dude has got to be trolling, it always amazes me how some people lack the ability to think
Ikr imagine being this dense,
This dude has got to be trolling, it always amazes me how some people lack the ability to think
What organ isn't vital? I am pretty sure if you shot any part of my body I could quite easily die from it. If not directly from blood loss or infection. It isn't like evolution gave us random spots that are safe to be hit.
First, infection isn't even needed in this scenario, you don't die from infection in 30 seconds.
Secondly, the majority of people who are shot with a firearm via violence do not die. It's not even close. In numbers.
Third, firearms unless they hit you in the heart or head is not going to immediately kill you. This is why in war most of the casualties are injured and not death.
Answer the fucking questions you are being asked not the ones you want people to have had asked you
Name a non-vital organ. Some part of the human body that if shot can not result in the death of a person.
Liver, kidney, lung, stomach, arms, legs, want me to go on? Or do you need a human biology lesson to understand that you can lose a lot of shit before you die.
Last I checked, you kinda need lungs to breathe. And also last I checked, arms and legs aren't organs
You can live with one lung..this isn't rocket science.
As a gun enthusiast, get the fuck away from me.
🥱
Did you also serve in the military and know so much more than me about guns. Lol you're a FUDD if you are a "gun enthusiast"
Playing COD doesn't count.
If you served it was in the kitchen.
Lol kk kid.
Ps: nice misogynistic joke neck beard.
I never said only women cook in the Army. That was your thought.
Sure thing buddy.
Automatic weapons are used in "spray and pray" situations with large crowds.
The Las Vegas shooter modified his weapons for automatic fire resulting in 60 deaths, 413 wounded, and a total of 867 injuries due to the panic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting
It stands as the deadliest mass shooting in US history. So, yeah, in a crowded situation, automatic weapons are far, far, worse.
60 deaths with 413 wounded and 867 injured due to panic. Look at the dead vs wounded. The crowd was huge and even a semi automatic would have done just as much damage if not more.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/33-dead-130-injured-china-knife-wielding-spree-n41966
From the 32nd floor of a hotel.
Yes bullets don't stop after 20 feet... what's your point? The spray into a crowd that size and that packed together, it's surprising more weren't killed.
The point is, when your target is a crowd of people, automatic fire is not as ineffective as you make it out to be.
Like at a music festival... or in a mall.
It's ineffective at killing people, literally the numbers prove this.
Except when used in the largest mass killing im US history.
Again, the ratio of injuries vs deaths is way higher than when someone with a semi automatic has walked around and shot people. I don't understand why that's hard to understand.
Hell look at this gang shooting that just happened
https://lemmy.world/post/14304481
1 dead 8 injured in a drive-by. %100 a Glock with a giggle switch used.
"it killed 60 people, it's ineffective at killing"
are you even listening to yourself?
C'mon, it's obviously a troll. Nobody's this brain dead.
This might be the dumbest opinion I've ever read on here
Why because you don't understand how automatic firearms work?
They aren't the ones that don't understand.
No they don't and neither do you kid.
What kind of absolute psycho needs to bring an automatic rifle to the mall? Mass shooters, that's who.
Your parents failed you.
You completely missed his point.
Must have been using an automatic weapon
We don't have automatic weapons available here. That's how disconnected you all are from understanding the issues. Just as Republicans here want to ban abortion without knowing anything about women. You want to do the same with firearms without knowing anything about them.
It isn't required to know every single random trivia fact about guns to know they are designed to kill people. None of us need perfect knowledge before we do anything. Do you have any inkling how crazy the physics/chemistry of fire is? No? Guess you have no opinion on your car catching on fire.
And this is a bullshit comparison with abortion.
No it's basic knowledge, and it absolutely is akin to the abortion debate. You sound like that dumbass senator who said a woman's body knows if it was a legit pregnancy or rape and can get rid of it if it's rape. That's the level of ignorance the majority of you anti-gun people have.
Please demonstrate your claim that the abortion debate and gun debate are the same.
Nice personal attack btw. Really convinced me.
I literally just did. The mass majority of users here and the mass majority of antigun people do not understand what they want legislated away. The same goes for prolife tools.
Where did I personally attack you?
Tell me your only exposure to automatic weapons is Call of Duty without telling me.
Lol ok sure. I own an automatic, it was stupid expensive and is wildly inaccurate. It's a collection piece and barely gets used because of how silly it is
Tell me again how little I know...you being antigun telling me that I don't know about firearms is hilarious.
I'm a combat veteran. I've used semi/burst/and full weapons in combat.
You're full of shit.
Sure ya did desk jockey.
Even just using that phrase tells me you were not a grunt.
Never said I was. We really need a /r/justbootthings here on Lemmy. Your military experience doesn't magically make you an expert. Usually it's the opposite.
Lmao. Are you really going to argue that combat experience makes you inexperienced in handling weapons?
Oh boy.
Your inability to use an automatic weapon accurately has no bearing on how many casualties a competent person could inflict with one you muppet.
Yes because we all know that mentally ill people who intend on killing people usually get a gun and train with it. Almost all shootings happen directly after getting the firearm.
The nutter who shot up that LA concert spent a lot of time training, and spent years buying his firearms and ammo.
Australian's have zero interest in going down the route that America has with school shootings. The stabbing is a tragedy that could have been much worse.
And unlike in the US UNARMED civilians were able to intervene and slow the attacker down.
Fuck you brainwashed cretins who would rather have children dying than give up your precious penis extensions.
Cool, we like our guns, stay over there or w/e you are and let your nanny state tell you that you cannot own paintball or airsoft or gelsoft guns cause they're dangerous lol
You’re not sane and I hope you don’t have access to firearms.
O no another euro telling me I don't know what I'm talking about lol
At what point of literally everybody disagreeing with you would you assess your stance? Just curious.
Check their recent replies, homeboy is actually trying to pretend he’s been in agreement with the dissenters this whole time.
Probably because in a shopping mall you don't need to be accurate in the slightest to kill others.
You clearly haven't shot an automatic firearm before. They're wildly inaccurate and you literally cannot hit shit with them.
I definitely haven't, lol. My assumption is this guy wouldn't need to aim to hit folks in a shopping center, but that's just a guess. Given that automatics are illegal where I'm from they're kind of a mythical concept haha.
I personally think I'm grateful this guy didn't have a firearm of any sort. There's a picture of a guy armed with a bollard having a standoff with him to protect his family. This would be a very different article if the slasher was armed even with a pistol.
You most definitely need to be aiming to hit moving targets with a firearm, automatics are wildly inaccurate because the rate of fire creates a ton of recoil which has the rounds go everywhere. On top of that a 30 round standard size magazine, lasts about 2 seconds.
The reason semi-automatic hand guns are heavily used in 95% of murders in the USA is because they're easier to aim at close range, concealable and easy to toss once they've been used.
What I'm saying is that depending on the shopping center, you could very easily "shoot everywhere" and still hit many people, for example, the bump stock fueled 2017 Vegas shooting.
Yep but your odds of actually killing someone are lower than if you actually aimed and fired with a semi automatic.
Like I said in one of my other posts. There is a reason the military went to 3rnd burst and semi auto for their infantry rifles and SAWs used as suppression. Vietnam they found out that most soldiers would mag dump and not hit anything. So they went over to 3rnd burst and single shooting teaching the soldiers to fire deliberately when aiming to kill.
I'd say the reason the military did that is probably because they're not shooting into crowds of inattentive, unsuspecting bystanders, and you can't really compare military tactics to a dude shooting up a mall where folks are unarmed, but this is getting pretty far into the theoretical weeds.
Actually the main reason they did it was because they were dealing with a problem of psychology that they were trying to solve with technology.
Basically you've got a bunch of terrified conscripts who you've dragged off the streets and flown out into the middle of a jungle to fight a pointless war that they in no way care about or believe in.
The lack of accuracy was a combination of piss poor training and blind screaming terror.
The US military looked at this and said "Clearly the guns are the problem."
I can't even...
Why because you don't know whats the difference between semi-automatic and automatic?
Automatics are designed to keep enemies suppressed, because of the level of accuracy they have.
What level of accuracy do you need when you’re within a few feet?
Ask the gang bangers in inner cities. Tons of giggle switches out there, but their homicide rate has dropped. Pointing to a lack of accuracy.
Wait, your argument is that these things are so inaccurate that within stabbing distance they still miss their target?
Yup, injuries have climbed but deaths have dropped.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/03/21/chicago-glock-switch-lawsuit/
Even Chicago's own lawsuit details how inaccurate they are.
It's specifically citing modified handguns, which are not designed for automatic fire in the first place. An automatic rifle, with a stock and grip, is way more controllable than a fucking handgun doing something it wasn't designed to do without also adding stocks and grips.
Really that's your go to?
The Glocks are %100 designed for automatic fire, a lower is all that changes it when you have a legal automatic firearm.
On top of that, the last time an automatic rifle was used was during the LA bank robbery. Rifles are rarely used in homicides, and automatic rifles are basically never used.
You have a really bad understanding of firearms and statistics for them.
Okay this is a blatant disregard for correlation vs causation, with a side of no shared data to boot.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/03/21/chicago-glock-switch-lawsuit/
Even Chicago's own lawsuit details how inaccurate they are.
https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shooting-shootings-crimes-crime/14254533/
Enjoy your data.
Inaccurate, but it doesn't say anything about less lethal.
You are once again assuming that the individual is aiming at particular targets, but instead they're in a shopping center with strangers.
Finally, even with your provided one year of data, it's correlation vs causation.
Uhh why would it magically be less than lethal? It's still a firearm...and no the data is showing this throughout all the innercities where gang violence is high.
To put it succinctly, just because you can't hit your intended target with an automatic firearm doesn't mean the danger goes away - oftentimes bystanders get hurt, which is mentioned in the quote you brought up.
I didn't say it did anywhere. I have stated multiple times that the odds of being killed by someone spraying into a crowd is lower than someone actively aiming at you.
There's a nuanced difference between odds of being someone being killed by x versus y, and the number of deaths resulting from x vs y.
My hunch is that spraying into a crowd with an automatic results in more deaths at a faster rate than someone actively aiming, but quite frankly my personal belief is that having a knife severely limited the number of deaths when compared to any firearm.
https://lemmy.world/post/14304481
Last night, gang hit, 1 dead 8 injured, drive by. Glock with giggle switch %100 was used. I'm not saying automatics aren't deadly, I'm saying most cannot properly use them to the point of making them deadly.
So you're telling me the military uses an AR instead of an LMG for suppressive fire?
Suppressive fire is to suppress the enemy, not kill them.
You're just proving his point that full-auto is inaccurate and unreliable for anything but suppressive fire.
I doubt a professional soldier fires full auto with an AR during a fire fight.
Hold up, let me just check with a professional soldier real quick...
Yeah, my wife says that in an urban combat situation like this (basically anything taking place in or around buildings, even a larger building like a mall), you almost certainly would be using full auto (if you have the option). At longer ranges however you would definitely switch to semi-automatic fire.
That's assuming you're up against armed resistance and know what you're doing, of course. If you're the kind of coward who goes and murders a bunch of innocent strangers, any self-loading weapon is going to be significantly more dangerous than not having one at all, be it semi-automatic or fully-automatic.
What about my full auto Knife? More Dangerous than a Knife or less?
No auto-knife is complete without a Singlcldpy
Oh boy, I might make my first NCD Post out of this Aneurysm of a Post 😂
Go for it, you do know what NCD is right? Most people there are progun.... it's literally pro-military.
The fact that people like you are allowed to own automatic guns is the best argument against that being allowed.
The ncd on Lemmy is hilarious, it's filled with a bunch of eurocucks who whine about firearms ownership.
Already did, and they find your arguments hilarious because of how absurd they are.
Came from there, did laugh at this bullshit. Thanks for sharing
You mean how you think people just die from being shot? And how you die from losing a lung? Lol you're a perfect example of ignorance.
My wife is a reg-force infanteer. At the kind of distances you're firing at inside of a shopping mall she could comfortably dump a ten round burst into a person's torso and not miss a shot. Even an untrained shooter could easily land a lot of lethal hits if they were firing into a crowd. And yes, automatic fire is absolutely used in urban combat; at close ranges it is very easy to control a fully automatic weapon sufficiently for that. The standard strategy is to aim for the navel and let your fire carry up the torso; it's known as "zippering". When intentionally controlled by the shooter these weapons do not jump around anything like the way you've seen in video games.
Also, generally full auto is not that great for suppressing fire, unless you're talking about a machine gun. With an assault rifle you're better off maintaining steady suppression in semi-auto. It's not so much the volume of fire that keeps a target's head down as it is the consistency. Dumping a whole mag and then stopping to reload gives them plenty of time to set up and start laying hate on your position. There are exceptions like Aussie Peel Out, but they're rare. For the part talking guns is the way it's done.
That's without even getting into the fact that saying "automatic weapon" doesn't necessarily mean "fully automatic" (hence why the word "fully" is usually in there; if there wasn't any ambiguity, why is it necessary to specify?). It's much more likely that the previous commenter was referring to any form of self-loading weapon.
That is 100% factually incorrect.
Got a source for it? Or you just another anti-gun who wants to say "fake news".
You can go look up why the military has 3 round burst and semi auto which is what they train most infantry on vs full auto. Be my guest.
Why are they effective at suppression? Is it because if you don't stay down you get shot?
You have a point.
How many shootings do we see that have fewer victims than this?
That the news reports on in America? None - that exist? A whole bunch... here's the list: https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting