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.

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        7 months ago

        There’s a large American population on lemmy, I know it’s a common view but thankfully it’s the minority one.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          7 months ago

          No it’s not, the majority of Americans are ok owning firearms. The view that we shouldn’t be able to own firearms is a minority one and is more so prevalent on the Internet in echo chambers that lean left.

          Also, we made a comment because automatic weapons are basically non-existent here in the USA, which is something the anti-gun crowd continually is ignorant on.

          • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            25
            ·
            7 months ago

            There is a clear majority of Americans that don’t believe automatic weapons should be legal - generally America is pro hunting rifle (with the common impression those are akin to old bolt action or breech loading rifles in fire rate). The semi and fully automatic weapons poll unfavorably - especially handguns.

              • Clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                13
                ·
                7 months ago

                That says three quarters of gun owners claim self defense as the reason, it doesn’t say three quarter of Americans own guns for self defense.

                • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  Where did I say that 3/4s own guns? You stated the majority own firearms for hunting, which is completely false.

                  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    To clarify, I’m not them - but I said the majority of Americans support hunting rifle ownership. When you get into auto or semi-auto that shifts to a minority. And yea, America outlaws fully automatic weapons but rapid fire semi automatic firearms are quite legal.

              • itslilith
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                7 months ago

                “Banned via price” is a funny way of saying you can buy them

                • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  It’s a classist ban, the poor cannot afford them but the wealthy can. Cheapest stuff you can get is around 20k+ they are effectively banned.

          • azertyfun
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            7 months ago

            The anti-gun crowd is also ignorant of the practicalities of automatic vs semiautomatic. What they mean is “civilians shouldn’t have mostly unrestricted access to firearms, especially ones with no use for hunting” and getting hung up on technical minutia misses the point entirely.

            • TangledHyphae@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              “Unrestricted” is quite a leap, I have to pass background checks, and depending on state, there is a waiting period before I can take the firearm home. Concealed carry also requires classes with certificates and gun range proof with instructors, and FBI fingerprint check and storage in their database forever.

            • CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              No pretty sure most of them mean “ban guns”. I’ve seen too many “no one wants to take your guns” posts that followed with a “but…”

            • escaped_cruzader@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              mostly unrestricted access

              This only works to prevent mass shootings of opportunity, the planners just jump the necessary hoops

      • n3m37h@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        7 months ago

        I think you’re under selling how mind numbing brain dead they really are.

        I feel like you could compare their intelligence to the Minister of Education from Idiocracy

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • Ixoid@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        71
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Brainworms. Fuck your freedum bullshit, we don’t want or need your sick gun culture in Australia.

            • SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

              • Ixoid@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                22
                ·
                7 months ago

                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.

                • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  You do know more guns are in civilian hands in Australia now than before the 96 forced confiscation.

                  • Ixoid@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    11
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    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.

              • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                7 months ago

                The UK has a violence problem - but that problem would be so much fucking worse if there were guns involved.

      • itslilith
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        61
        ·
        7 months ago

        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

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

              • itslilith
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                18
                ·
                7 months ago

                if you’re trolling, I congratulate the bit

                if not, holy shit dude, get a grip

                • PhatInferno@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Ikr imagine being this dense,

                  This dude has got to be trolling, it always amazes me how some people lack the ability to think

                • PhatInferno@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Ikr imagine being this dense,

                  This dude has got to be trolling, it always amazes me how some people lack the ability to think

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                7 months ago

                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.

                • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  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.

                  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    10
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    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.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        50
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        7 months ago

        Tell me your only exposure to automatic weapons is Call of Duty without telling me.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            32
            ·
            7 months ago

            I’m a combat veteran. I’ve used semi/burst/and full weapons in combat.

            You’re full of shit.

                • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  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.

                  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    18
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Lmao. Are you really going to argue that combat experience makes you inexperienced in handling weapons?

                    Oh boy.

          • Cypher@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Your inability to use an automatic weapon accurately has no bearing on how many casualties a competent person could inflict with one you muppet.

            • SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

              • Cypher@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                7 months ago

                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.

                • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  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

      • taanegl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        7 months ago

        What kind of absolute psycho needs to bring an automatic rifle to the mall? Mass shooters, that’s who.

        Your parents failed you.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

            • SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              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.

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                7 months ago

                Please demonstrate your claim that the abortion debate and gun debate are the same.

                Nice personal attack btw. Really convinced me.

                • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  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?

      • papertowels@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        ·
        7 months ago

        Probably because in a shopping mall you don’t need to be accurate in the slightest to kill others.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          You clearly haven’t shot an automatic firearm before. They’re wildly inaccurate and you literally cannot hit shit with them.

          • papertowels@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

            • SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

              • papertowels@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                12
                ·
                7 months ago

                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.

                • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  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.

                  • papertowels@lemmy.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    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.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

            • SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

              • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                20
                ·
                7 months ago

                Wait, your argument is that these things are so inaccurate that within stabbing distance they still miss their target?

                • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Yup, injuries have climbed but deaths have dropped.

                  https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/03/21/chicago-glock-switch-lawsuit/

                  The 41-page complaint details dangerous and deadly incidents involving modified Glocks on the streets of Chicago in recent years, including police officers with department-issue Glock pistols facing off against criminals with machine-gun power. Bystanders and buildings have been struck by the bullet spray of modified Glocks, which cause a recoil that is difficult for unskilled or inexperienced users to control, the complaint alleges.

                  Even Chicago’s own lawsuit details how inaccurate they are.

                  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    13
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    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.

              • papertowels@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                18
                ·
                7 months ago

                Okay this is a blatant disregard for correlation vs causation, with a side of no shared data to boot.

                • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/03/21/chicago-glock-switch-lawsuit/

                  The 41-page complaint details dangerous and deadly incidents involving modified Glocks on the streets of Chicago in recent years, including police officers with department-issue Glock pistols facing off against criminals with machine-gun power. Bystanders and buildings have been struck by the bullet spray of modified Glocks, which cause a recoil that is difficult for unskilled or inexperienced users to control, the complaint alleges.

                  Even Chicago’s own lawsuit details how inaccurate they are.

                  https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shooting-shootings-crimes-crime/14254533/

                  CPD said there were 617 murders in Chicago last year, down from 709 in 2022.

                  Enjoy your data.

                  • papertowels@lemmy.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    12
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    7 months ago

                    Inaccurate, but it doesn’t say anything about less lethal.

                    Bystanders and buildings have been struck by the bullet spray of modified Glocks

                    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.

        • sandman@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

            • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              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.

      • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

          • yuri@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            7 months ago

            They actually directly refuted most of what you said in the comment they replied to. If you wanna pretend that you suddenly don’t believe all the shit in your initial comment, that’s cool, but don’t act like y’all have been on the same side this whole time lmao

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Automatics are stupid hard to shoot accurately. The military uses them for suppression even.

        Why are they effective at suppression? Is it because if you don’t stay down you get shot?

      • sandman@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        You have a point.

        How many shootings do we see that have fewer victims than this?

    • jumjummy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’s so infuriating that people will use this as an example of “see, mass killings happen even without guns!1!1!!” without the logical step of “wow, that would have been so much worse with a gun!”.