He's dead! Hopefully none of the other hostages are too badly hurt.
Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums
Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
He's dead! Hopefully none of the other hostages are too badly hurt.
Looks like one other hostage was killed along with several critical injuries.Originally Posted by KestrelBike
They are lobbing those things like beads at Mardi Gras
Sounds like two hostages dead in addition to the gunman. I have limited time for this forum today so quick response to Ridge:
The gun/knife controls are an indicator of mentality. This Islamic terrorists, like so many of our own domestic mass-shooters, are cowards and seek easy targets. This kind of crap happened far less frequently when we showed some spine -- same with the UK and Russia. The Chechnyans got bold with domestic terrorism in Russia when they perceived weakness in the government and have been much less pervasive in Putin's admittedly tyrannical regime. We don't need to be tyrants like Putin as long as we have a backbone like Thatcher/Reagan and it starts with not molly-coddling society with crap like the gun/knife controls presently at play in Australia.
Again, terminating the gunman with prejudice (as Australia just did) shows some spine and shows future wannabes just what's going to happen. The loss of two hostages is sad but pussyfooting around leads to more instances, more hostages, more people dying.
Peace Through Strength.
While I agree extreme prejudice is required in situations like this, I disagree the Australian authorities actually followed through with that. The situation was active for what, 16 hours? During that time the media showed more than a couple pictures of the bad guy standing right smack in the front store window. A sharpshooter could have ended the situation many hours ago without the two hostages being killed and without the currently reported 4 wounded including one police officer being treated for a gunshot wound to his face.
Extreme prejudice would have been if they killed that SOB the second he stepped in front of that window the first time.
IMO, Australia showed too much tolerance by letting it drag out that long. The second he started displaying terrorist propaganda in the window his intentions became clear. At that point there should have been no question that terrorist needed to be killed immediately.
hollohas, I agree but at least they finally took care of it. Frankly, Australia has shown more spine in dealing with this kind of activity than the US this past year. They've had several incidents this year and while we can argue about the promptness, they were eventually effective. Compare that to O'Bozo releasing the top 5 detainees in exchange for a damned traitor and we STILL had 4 hostages executed by ISIS.
... and people wonder why al Qaeda viewed America as a paper tiger ...
Fair assessment, aloha.
Very belated response on my side to this story, and a belated Merry Christmas to all the folks on here while I'm at it.
I wrote this article from a South African perspective, so please bear in mind that not all of it may be internationally applicable.
http://gunservant.com/2014/12/16/ter...ion-of-safety/
Terror, Disarmament and the Illusion of Safety
Posted on December 16, 2014 by gunservant85
Bad people will find a way to perpetrate bad acts. This unfortunate reality was poignantly illustrated by the terrible events occurring in a Sydney café this week, as two innocent people tragically lost their lives due to the actions of a deranged madman. The Sydney Siege occurred in a country with some of the strictest gun control legislation in the world, during a time of increased national vigilance, after a known enemy made very public threats against Australian society.
So how, despite all the security precautions, increased policing and legislation, did a lone gunman manage to hold Australian citizens hostage for 16 hours before murdering two of them?
The answer is the same as for any terrorist attack in world history, from Munich, to London, to Madrid, to Boston, to New York; no matter how tight you spread your net, or how high you build your walls, the enemy will always find a way to eventually get in. It may take them time, but sooner or later there will be an opportunity for those who seek to do us harm to perpetrate their violence.
Despite the best efforts of the State to keep its citizens safe, it is not possible for governments to ever guarantee the security of its people. There are simply too many variables, too many unknowns in the equation, to keep track of.
Important questions need to be asked. Up to which point must laws and invasive security measures be tolerated if they cannot guarantee our safety? Is it worth sacrificing our individual social freedoms in an attempt to gain the mere illusion of safety? These questions were answered over two-and-a-half centuries ago by Benjamin Franklin for the Pennsylvania Assembly in 1755, “Those who give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Life in all its aspects is an inherently risky affair. Most rational people tend to recognise it as such, and that is why we attempt to hedge and manage our risks in various ways, be it household insurance, car safety belts, or investing in derivative financial instruments. We seek safety as a natural instinct, but occasionally we forget that safety is never defined as being risk free. Thus driving your children to school is generally considered safe, but it is not an activity without some sort of risk. Risk which remains regardless of what legislation or precautions are taken.
So where does this argument take us?
Would it have made a difference to the situation if Australian law allowed for citizens to legally carry firearms for defensive purposes? This is a question that is difficult to answer, again because there are just so many variables present. Considering that it took one brave (unarmed) man attempting to disarm the terrorist to act as a catalyst for ending the siege, it is definitely not a far-fetched concept. Add to this the numerous times unarmed hostages successfully overpowered their captors, and citizens fighting back becomes a very desirable reality.
The General Secretary of Interpol pondered the very real benefits of armed citizenry as a safeguard against terrorist attacks after the Westgate Mall attack in Nairobi, Kenya. Had an armed citizen with a concealed handgun been in the coffee shop, it would be entirely plausible for them to have ended this incident by waiting for an opportunity to shoot the attacker when he least expected it.
Sadly, we will now never know for certain.
But that is a reality that can be changed.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote