Australia

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kosh75287

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
407
Location
Nemo, TX
In the land down under, an Iranian who was somewhat MORE than "half a bubble off of plumb" takes hostages in a candy store/cafe for about 16 hours.

Now remember, THIS is the place where, after several mass-shootings, the private and personal ownership of firearms was effectively abolished. And FOR this draconian infringement of personal liberties, gun-control groups around the world held this move up as a MODEL on which other countries should address their gun-crime dilemmas.

Yet THIS screwball, who THE IRANIANS DEPORTED FOR BEING TOO CRAZY, and had a criminal record IN AUSTRALIA had no trouble procuring a shotgun (I keep HEARING it was a pump-action, but not confirmed) with which to take hostages.

The police ended the siege, after 16 hours, when they judged that there was an imminent threat of the loss of life. The hostage-taker and one hostage was killed.
It keeps resonating in MY mind that, one-well armed, well-trained private citizen in that candy store/cafe could have ended the siege before it even began.

Someone much wiser than me said, "Ïf you raise a generation of sheep, eventually wolves will descend upon it."

How right they were!
 
Also seems strange that a UK paper had great pics taken from news cameras on scene where they had clear sharp pics of the gunman. Where was a sniper with a 338 or similar? Could have ended without the raid that got an innocent killed
 
Knowing who he was, they had ample time to check out if he had obtained bomb making materials.

Trough the windows for hours on end one could see the perp parading back and forth, high powered rifle(s) could have brought it all to an end quickly.
 
@ oneounceload

I agree totally.

they lost at least 2 innocents to a lack of a shoot through the glass shooter.

I cannot for the life of me guess why .
 
taken from news cameras on scene where they had clear sharp pics of the gunman. Where was a sniper with a 338 or similar? Could have ended without the raid that got an innocent killed
Click to expand...

We had a similar stand-off at a bank in the Czech Republic about two years ago. The newspaper guys actually went out and made quite a long interview with a SWAT sniper that keeps winning police sniper competition around Europe. What he said was that with any type of glass that is not the typical thin home window type it is actually quite a tough job to hit the perp properly. The possibility of the bullet changing direction every slight bit while going through the glass is simply too big.

And if you don't take the perp down immediately, you risk starting off a carnage.
 
Glass does not change a bullet flight path very much. The hostages were up against the glass. The risk to eyesight of a bullet pass through glass is far more than the risk of a deviated bullet through glass.

The suspect had been tied to sexual assaults and the murder of his ex-wife. But the Australian authorities deemed him safe enough to walk the streets. Makes me wonder what you have to do down under to be deemed a threat.
 
I didn't know the gunman was visible. I trust what the SWAT sniper said about the glass, as I've read much discussion before on the considerations for shooting through automobile windshields and such. With the possibility for double paned insulated glass I'm sure the consideration is very real. That said how much opportunity did they lose because of the Aussie's insistence on a peaceful ending? What were the demands made that they refuse to release publicly?

While not a mass shooting, this is still the same kind of high level gun violence that the Anti's assure us would be mitigated if we just hand our guns over like the Aussies did.
 
Sure puts private concealed carry in another perspective, don't it?

If only the fella that had the nerve to confront him were also privately armed.
 
sawdeanz said:
I didn't know the gunman was visible. I trust what the SWAT sniper said about the glass, as I've read much discussion before on the considerations for shooting through automobile windshields and such. With the possibility for double paned insulated glass I'm sure the consideration is very real.
Click to expand...

Two entirely separate animals. Glass in automobiles is designed to not shatter, merely crack to absorb and dissipate energy in the event of a crash. Too much energy and it can shatter. Shooting through auto glass causes more bullet deviation whereas shooting through any single/double/triple paned building glass doesn't as much. Glass, like water, bends light ever so slightly. Anyone who has ever tried to spear a fish from shore knows this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top