Hey Bilby I thought Australia had gun control?

[Tigers!]

If you wish to watch a distressing minute by minute account of the Bondi attack

 

[Tigers!]

So if Emily really wants to be able to protect herself, why not just get a nice stick or cane or other such thing that people commonly carry to facilitate their lives? It won't put holes through anyone and people are WAY less likely to attempt to start shit.

It is such a shame that people do not mind their own business and leave others alone.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Yesterday youtube recommended me a half dozen videos by Australians on the Bondi Beach killings, including one from an LNP politician.
Some of the videos were pretty exaggerated, saying it was most important tragedy in Australia's history and will have extremely monumental impact on future of Australia. Personally I can think of many greater tragedies in Australia's history, including the past and still present mistreatment of the indigenous people, and our involvement in the Vietnam War.
The most disturbing thing about these videos were the comments, that included Islamaphobia, blaming the federal government, saying should get rid of the Labor Party, constant mentions of anti-Semitism, and so on, including hatred of gun control (except for Moslems). Many of these people expressed their sorrow for the victims, particularly the ten year old girl, yet in their normal life could be supporters of Trump, MAGA, TPUSA, and dare one say it anti-Semitism. Now it might be said I am being unfair, but their attitudes conveyed this impression.

Of course, what one reads in comments on youtube videos is from only an extremely small part of the population, so it doesn't reflect the majority view.

Josh Frydenberg, a former LNP federal government minister, if we take his words metaphorically is a traitor and terrorist accomplice, because he claimed he knew about the event (yet he didn't inform the AFP). His literal words were that the event was predictable.

I could have told you that that an such an event (viz. a mass attack on Jews) was inevitable in Australia. Location, size, method obviously unknown. Does that too make me a metaphorical tratitor and terrorist accomplice? It is just a matter of "reading the room".

We had the arson attack that destroyed the Addas synagoge in Melb. Dec. 2024. In July 2025 there was an arson attack on another synagoge.
Plus other smaller, less well-known events. It has been a slow build up to Bondi.
I do note that rarely does anyone from the Moselm community come out and publically deplore these attacks.

For too many years we have stood by on a state and commonwealth level as speech (gas the Jews, F--- the Jews, destroy Israel, from the river to the sea etc.) that in any other circumstance would be treated as hate speech and treated accordingly has not been done so.
Marchers every weekend since Oct 2023 in our capital city's have marched with ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas flags etc. and nothing was done to stop this display of hatred. They have chanted speech that should be considered hate speech.

We have not been looking after our Jewish brethen.

I'm not sure if you understood my point. That such an event would happen is predictable.

Just re-inforcing my point that antisemitism is not being taken seriously enough in Australia at present.

However, Josh in his criticism of the government implied that they should have been able to predict the time and place of this attack in detail. Therefore, if he is claiming to have this ability, which he obviously did not, then he would be negligent.

I have read as much as I could of Josh's comments. I did not see where he claimed that he knew precisely where/when the attack occurred nor accused the authorities of knowing such. Where exactly did he say those words?

How do we know if the Moslem community deplored the attacks or not? It depends on the media. There was soon after the attack a video that I watched where a prominent Moslem did criticize the event.

Criticise the event? Such a mild term. He should have condemned the évent' (as you call it) and its perpartraters. Do you have a link to that video?

There has also been hate speech from radical members of the Jewish community. There is also massive Islamophobia from too many Australians, in addition to their racism towards aborigines and Asians (especially the Chinese).
The way to look after our "Jewish brethren" is to look after everyone.

Yes we need to.

Claiming that anti-semitism is not being taken seriously is not a good take. Racism isn't taken seriously, general hate speech isn't taken seriously enough. However, if the government did try to take greater action, the usual suspects will claim their freedom of speech is being violated. Frydenberg and the LNP are cowards, because they don't really care about the victims killed in this incident, but see it just as another political opportunity to criticize the government. Palestinians are semites.
Frydenberg did imply that the time and place of the incident should have been predicted by the government (so that preemptive action could be taken to prevent the massacre), and yet the LNP never did such a prediction.

No doubt the government should know every domestic violence incident before it happens. Does he think the government should have a unit as in the movie 'Minority Report'? Also the Federal government is not responsible for state government issues; this again proves the LNP who know this fact, are merely being political, not compassionate or genuinely concerned.

If you go to youtube you will find at least two videos where prominent Moslems condemn the attack (and its perpetrators, very harshly). If you don't know about this, it confirms my point that the right-wing major media (who are hypocritically calling on the PM and other ministers to resign) are not conveying this to the general public.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I could have told you that that an such an event (viz. a mass attack on Jews) was inevitable in Australia. Location, size, method obviously unknown. Does that too make me a metaphorical tratitor and terrorist accomplice? It is just a matter of "reading the room".

We had the arson attack that destroyed the Addas synagoge in Melb. Dec. 2024. In July 2025 there was an arson attack on another synagoge.
Plus other smaller, less well-known events. It has been a slow build up to Bondi.
I do note that rarely does anyone from the Moselm community come out and publically deplore these attacks.

For too many years we have stood by on a state and commonwealth level as speech (gas the Jews, F--- the Jews, destroy Israel, from the river to the sea etc.) that in any other circumstance would be treated as hate speech and treated accordingly has not been done so.
Marchers every weekend since Oct 2023 in our capital city's have marched with ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas flags etc. and nothing was done to stop this display of hatred. They have chanted speech that should be considered hate speech.

We have not been looking after our Jewish brethen.

Yup. The world sits back and lets the bad things happen, then pretends to care when something big happens. People talk of unconscious racism--while exhibiting the same thing with regard to the Jews.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The vast majority of gun violence in the US is committed by criminals, not by law abiding citizens.

How could it possibly be otherwise?

That you consider this a point worth making shows just how hopelessly lost you are.

No, the point is that those guns aren't a serious threat to the law abiding.

Unless you’re a law abiding living in a bad neighborhood, right?

 

[bilby]

How do we know if the Moslem community deplored the attacks or not?

We could ask whether any of them took action at the time to attempt to disarm the gunmen, at the risk to their own lives.

It turns out that there were the same number of outstandingly heroic Muslims as there were outstandingly hateful ones on the day - two of each. One of each died.

The balance of actions suggests that Islam is roughly equally capable of both extremes; To suggest that Islam is only capable of the hateful (and never of the heroic) is contrary to the observed facts - once again, reality is making simpletons sad, so they are choosing to ignore it.

 

[bilby]

But how many threats are actually discovered this way?

The question should be "how many threats are actually deterred this way?".

Whether the police are effective is not measured on the number of arrests, but on the lack of crime.

The tiny numbers of mass shootings, in places where firearms are tightly restricted and regulated, compared to the large numbers of such shootings where firearms are ubiquitous, strongly suggests that the answer is "most of them".

 

[bilby]

Whereas the severely limited self defense options of places like Australia strongly favor the criminals.

And yet, crime rates in Australia are FAR lower than those in the US. Suggesting that your beautiful hypothesis is unable to defend itself against beastly facts.

 

[laughing dog]

I could have told you that that an such an event (viz. a mass attack on Jews) was inevitable in Australia. Location, size, method obviously unknown. Does that too make me a metaphorical tratitor and terrorist accomplice? It is just a matter of "reading the room".

We had the arson attack that destroyed the Addas synagoge in Melb. Dec. 2024. In July 2025 there was an arson attack on another synagoge.
Plus other smaller, less well-known events. It has been a slow build up to Bondi.
I do note that rarely does anyone from the Moselm community come out and publically deplore these attacks.

For too many years we have stood by on a state and commonwealth level as speech (gas the Jews, F--- the Jews, destroy Israel, from the river to the sea etc.) that in any other circumstance would be treated as hate speech and treated accordingly has not been done so.
Marchers every weekend since Oct 2023 in our capital city's have marched with ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas flags etc. and nothing was done to stop this display of hatred. They have chanted speech that should be considered hate speech.

We have not been looking after our Jewish brethen.

Yup. The world sits back and lets the bad things happen, then pretends to care when something big happens. People talk of unconscious racism--while exhibiting the same thing with regard to the Jews.

In case you haven't noticed, the world has been sitting back and letting bad things happen for centuries. Nothing has changed. No one is pretending to care about this particular tragedy - there are those who defend such atrocities, those who care only when it occurs to their preferred "tribes", there are those who definitely care about the killing of civilians anywhere, regardless of their religion, ethnicity or race, , and those who don't care or notice at all.

 

[Emily Lake]

The vast majority of gun violence in the US is committed by criminals, not by law abiding citizens.

How could it possibly be otherwise?

That you consider this a point worth making shows just how hopelessly lost you are.

Either I wasn't clear, or you're oversimplifying it for no reason.

So let me be more specific: The vast majority of gun violence in the US is committed by people who already had a history of violent criminal offenses such as gang members, drug dealers, etc. Most of those didn't get their guns legally in the first place. Very little of it is committed by people who had clean records and just went over the edge.

 

[Emily Lake]

So if Emily really wants to be able to protect herself, why not just get a nice stick or cane or other such thing that people commonly carry to facilitate their lives? It won't put holes through anyone and people are WAY less likely to attempt to start shit.

Why do you feel the need to call me out? I'm pretty happy with pepper spray. I just don't have any opposition to carrying a weapon. Lots of women would benefit from concealed carry.

 

[laughing dog]

The vast majority of gun violence in the US is committed by criminals, not by law abiding citizens.

How could it possibly be otherwise?

That you consider this a point worth making shows just how hopelessly lost you are.

Either I wasn't clear, or you're oversimplifying it for no reason.

So let me be more specific: The vast majority of gun violence in the US is committed by people who already had a history of violent criminal offenses such as gang members, drug dealers, etc. Most of those didn't get their guns legally in the first place. Very little of it is committed by people who had clean records and just went over the edge.

First, reducing gun violence is good, regardless of the source.

Second, effective gun regulation works to reduce gun ownership by everyone.

The USA has a gun problem. There are too many firearms out. Now, do I think the citizenry of the US is ready to do the long hardwork of amending the Constitution and changing our collective fucked up obsession with firearms? Now, I don’t.

 

[bilby]

The vast majority of gun violence in the US is committed by criminals, not by law abiding citizens.

How could it possibly be otherwise?

That you consider this a point worth making shows just how hopelessly lost you are.

Either I wasn't clear, or you're oversimplifying it for no reason.

So let me be more specific: The vast majority of gun violence in the US is committed by people who already had a history of violent criminal offenses such as gang members, drug dealers, etc. Most of those didn't get their guns legally in the first place. Very little of it is committed by people who had clean records and just went over the edge.

No, you were clear; And my response remains "Duh".

How could it be otherwise? It's true everywhere. For obvious reasons. It in no way sets the US apart from other nations with stricter gun control.

The difference isn't in who commits the gun crimes, but in how much gun crime they commit. Which is a measure in which the US massively outweighs all other OECD nations.

 

[TV and credit cards]

So if Emily really wants to be able to protect herself, why not just get a nice stick or cane or other such thing that people commonly carry to facilitate their lives? It won't put holes through anyone and people are WAY less likely to attempt to start shit.

Why do you feel the need to call me out? I'm pretty happy with pepper spray. I just don't have any opposition to carrying a weapon. Lots of women would benefit from concealed carry.

Maybe. Depends on how the person being offended reacts. If there were proper training required, I might be inclined to agree with this statement but there is not proper training in any state I know of. It's just, you get a gun and you get a gun... and lets hope all goes well. Consider the adrenaline rush in the moment, there's just threat and tunnel vision. Decision making ability goes by the wayside.
When it comes to self defense, guns are unique. It only takes a fraction of a second to make a poor decision that can't be taken back. This doesn't hold true for pepper spray which I carry mainly for asshole dog owners. I also have a home defense hatchet which is a very deliberate weapon in which I have more time to make that critical decision.
And the whole idea that a weapon being carried is going to be at the ready when needed is preposterous. Maybe an open carry if Maggie McQuickdraw has been practicing.

 

[Emily Lake]

Whereas the severely limited self defense options of places like Australia strongly favor the criminals.

And yet, crime rates in Australia are FAR lower than those in the US. Suggesting that your beautiful hypothesis is unable to defend itself against beastly facts.

Some crime rates are lower, and it leads to a case where the aggregate rate is lower. But some types of crime rates are higher - rape, assault, and burglary are higher per capita in AU than the US.

Australia vs United States: Crime Facts and Stats

Intentional homicide rate, Crime levels, Rape rate, Murder rate per million people, Murder rate and 78 More Interesting Facts and Stats

www.nationmaster.com

It's very difficult to compare an overall crime rate when the laws are different on certain things. AU's gun control will absolutely result in a lower crime rate for all things that involve guns - duh. Similarly, the ease of acquiring illegal drugs results in different offending rates where drug use is involved (not necessarily just direct use or possession crimes).

I'm not saying that the US is better. We have many, many, many problems. I'm only saying that a high level comparison isn't really useful, nor is a simple "gun control!" proposal a viable solution to the problems that the US has. US problems are not the same as AU problems, it's not reasonable to think that the way AU addresses issues is the best way for the US to do so.

 

[Emily Lake]

The vast majority of gun violence in the US is committed by criminals, not by law abiding citizens.

How could it possibly be otherwise?

That you consider this a point worth making shows just how hopelessly lost you are.

Either I wasn't clear, or you're oversimplifying it for no reason.

So let me be more specific: The vast majority of gun violence in the US is committed by people who already had a history of violent criminal offenses such as gang members, drug dealers, etc. Most of those didn't get their guns legally in the first place. Very little of it is committed by people who had clean records and just went over the edge.

First, reducing gun violence is good, regardless of the source.

Second, effective gun regulation works to reduce gun ownership by everyone.

The USA has a gun problem. There are too many firearms out. Now, do I think the citizenry of the US is ready to do the long hardwork of amending the Constitution and changing our collective fucked up obsession with firearms? Now, I don’t.

I agree that reducing gun violence is good. I am not convinced that effective gun regulation will effectively reduce gun violence in the US, when the guns were illegally acquired by violent criminals in the first place. If you can convince me that making it significantly harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms is going to reduce the number of guns in the hands of drug dealers and gang members, I'm open to it.

 

[Emily Lake]

The vast majority of gun violence in the US is committed by criminals, not by law abiding citizens.

How could it possibly be otherwise?

That you consider this a point worth making shows just how hopelessly lost you are.

Either I wasn't clear, or you're oversimplifying it for no reason.

So let me be more specific: The vast majority of gun violence in the US is committed by people who already had a history of violent criminal offenses such as gang members, drug dealers, etc. Most of those didn't get their guns legally in the first place. Very little of it is committed by people who had clean records and just went over the edge.

No, you were clear; And my response remains "Duh".

How could it be otherwise? It's true everywhere. For obvious reasons. It in no way sets the US apart from other nations with stricter gun control.

The difference isn't in who commits the gun crimes, but in how much gun crime they commit. Which is a measure in which the US massively outweighs all other OECD nations.

Explain to me how that's supposed to work. People who illegally acquired guns in the first place, and who routinely commit violent crimes are just supposed to stop committing as many violent crimes because... why? Are you imagining that the cartel-backed dealer is just going to wake up and say "Well gee, I know I'll go to jail forever and ever if I get caught importing and selling heroin, but fear of going to jail for life because I have a gun, well that's just too much risk!"?

 

[laughing dog]

The vast majority of gun violence in the US is committed by criminals, not by law abiding citizens.

How could it possibly be otherwise?

That you consider this a point worth making shows just how hopelessly lost you are.

Either I wasn't clear, or you're oversimplifying it for no reason.

So let me be more specific: The vast majority of gun violence in the US is committed by people who already had a history of violent criminal offenses such as gang members, drug dealers, etc. Most of those didn't get their guns legally in the first place. Very little of it is committed by people who had clean records and just went over the edge.

First, reducing gun violence is good, regardless of the source.

Second, effective gun regulation works to reduce gun ownership by everyone.

The USA has a gun problem. There are too many firearms out. Now, do I think the citizenry of the US is ready to do the long hardwork of amending the Constitution and changing our collective fucked up obsession with firearms? Now, I don’t.

I agree that reducing gun violence is good. I am not convinced that effective gun regulation will effectively reduce gun violence in the US, when the guns were illegally acquired by violent criminals in the first place. If you can convince me that making it significantly harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms is going to reduce the number of guns in the hands of drug dealers and gang members, I'm open to it.

Fewer guns mean fewer guns acquired by everyone - legally or illegally.

 

[Emily Lake]

So if Emily really wants to be able to protect herself, why not just get a nice stick or cane or other such thing that people commonly carry to facilitate their lives? It won't put holes through anyone and people are WAY less likely to attempt to start shit.

Why do you feel the need to call me out? I'm pretty happy with pepper spray. I just don't have any opposition to carrying a weapon. Lots of women would benefit from concealed carry.

Maybe. Depends on how the person being offended reacts. If there were proper training required, I might be inclined to agree with this statement but there is not proper training in any state I know of. It's just, you get a gun and you get a gun... and lets hope all goes well. Consider the adrenaline rush in the moment, there's just threat and tunnel vision. Decision making ability goes by the wayside.

When it comes to self defense, guns are unique. It only takes a fraction of a second to make a poor decision that can't be taken back. This doesn't hold true for pepper spray which I carry mainly for asshole dog owners. I also have a home defense hatchet which is a very deliberate weapon in which I have more time to make that critical decision.
And the whole idea that a weapon being carried is going to be at the ready when needed is preposterous. Maybe an open carry if Maggie McQuickdraw has been practicing.

Of course, you're correct with regard to training. Personally, I think it's reasonable to require training and qualification prior to allowing purchase and ownership of a gun. I'd rather like to see periodic re-qualifications as well. Yes yes... infringement... but I think it's reasonable to require at least as much training and demonstration of competency for guns as for cars.

 

[Emily Lake]

The vast majority of gun violence in the US is committed by criminals, not by law abiding citizens.

How could it possibly be otherwise?

That you consider this a point worth making shows just how hopelessly lost you are.

Either I wasn't clear, or you're oversimplifying it for no reason.

So let me be more specific: The vast majority of gun violence in the US is committed by people who already had a history of violent criminal offenses such as gang members, drug dealers, etc. Most of those didn't get their guns legally in the first place. Very little of it is committed by people who had clean records and just went over the edge.

First, reducing gun violence is good, regardless of the source.

Second, effective gun regulation works to reduce gun ownership by everyone.

The USA has a gun problem. There are too many firearms out. Now, do I think the citizenry of the US is ready to do the long hardwork of amending the Constitution and changing our collective fucked up obsession with firearms? Now, I don’t.

I agree that reducing gun violence is good. I am not convinced that effective gun regulation will effectively reduce gun violence in the US, when the guns were illegally acquired by violent criminals in the first place. If you can convince me that making it significantly harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms is going to reduce the number of guns in the hands of drug dealers and gang members, I'm open to it.

Fewer guns mean fewer guns acquired by everyone - legally or illegally.

Why on earth do you think this? It's kind of the exact opposite of the argument when it comes to drugs - where making them legal is supposed to result in lower rates of addiction and deaths, and remove the appeal of them being taboo and counterculture. Are you also for much stricter drug laws?

ETA: Convince me that this is actually going to address the problem, don't expect me to support overturning a constitutional right on wishes and hopes alone.