• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Still think Australia doesn't have a gang problem?

arthwollipot

Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
102,935
Location
Ngunnawal Country
Violence erupts in Melbourne's CBD as gangs clash in Federation Square and Swanston Street

Two street gangs have clashed violently in Melbourne's CBD, sending terrified innocent bystanders running from Federation Square and a Swanston Street cafe.
Others were forced back inside a restaurant for their own safety as a lengthy brawl erupted in Federation Square, where hundreds of families had gathered to celebrate the Moomba festival and watch the annual fireworks, about 10pm on Saturday.
"We were absolutely terrified," said Troy West, from Bendigo, who spent 45 minutes locked inside a Federation Square restaurant as police tried to contain the rival groups outside.
Click to expand...

I'm just glad no-one was seriously hurt.
 
Before anyone mentions it, this does not appear to have been gang-related. Some have suggested that it is more to do with the new lockout laws.
 
Last edited:
Still think Australia doesn't have a gang problem?
Click to expand...


I wasn't even aware that I thought that! Thank you for setting me straight.

Too bad none of them were armed with guns; this unfortunate incident might have ended with only several deaths instead of "a number of" injuries.
 
Guessing. CBD = Central Business District?

Moomba Festival I'll just let slide by.

The report said they used chairs as weapons.
 
A standard Saturday night in a big city. My son-in-law is a cop. He has experiences like this all the time. Nobody killed. Nothing to see here. Move on.
 
lionking said:
A standard Saturday night in a big city. My son-in-law is a cop. He has experiences like this all the time. Nobody killed. Nothing to see here. Move on.
Click to expand...

So there are widespread gang fights in your cities at the weekend?

There is a difference between drunks having a fight on a Saturday night and a fight like this between rival gang factions.
 
theprestige said:
Sounds like something out of West Side Story.

I hadn't thought about it before, but now I'm convinced that Australia doesn't have a gang problem.
Click to expand...

Yes they do. Those gangs are an embarrassment. They need to go back to gang school to learn how to be more fearsome. And how to dance aggressively in formation, but not in a gay way.

Guns won't solve Australia's gang problem. A theater arts program might.
 
If this was an organised fight with weapons then why was no one injured? I suggest everything was for show. Easy to break something with chains, clubs or other weapons. Hard to not do so.
 
rjh01 said:
If this was an organised fight with weapons then why was no one injured? I suggest everything was for show. Easy to break something with chains, clubs or other weapons. Hard to not do so.
Click to expand...


The article doesn't really say that weapons were used during the fight. The only mention of weapons was that someone posted a picture of different types some time prior to the fight.
 
logger said:
Good thing this hero was armed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/customer-shoots-dead-hatchet-wielding-store-attacker-washington-state/
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Wouldn't the headline have been better with the word "subdued" instead of "killed?"

The thing about having a gun is it makes other options less attractive. Why would I spray a fire extinguisher in the attacker's face when I can shoot them instead? Isn't that why I carry the gun around anyhow, because I might want to shoot someone someday? They've already bought into the heuristic. We become prisoners of the hypotheticals playing in our heads.
 
Last edited:
Australia doesn't have centuries of slavery and institutional persecution/ghettoisation against a substantial ethnic minority. That's why gang violence is worse in the US than largely homogeneous Australia.
 
marplots said:
Not necessarily. Wouldn't the headline have been better with the word "subdued" instead of "killed?"
The thing about having a gun is it makes other options less attractive. Why would I spray a fire extinguisher in the attacker's face when I can shoot them instead? Isn't that why I carry the gun around anyhow, because I might want to shoot someone someday? They've already bought into the heuristic. We become prisoners of the hypotheticals playing in our heads.
Click to expand...

The highlighted may depend on the eventual overall outcome. Let's just say since he didn't kill anyone with the machet he would eventually get out of prison on parole. Years later he loses it again and this time he kills three people with a meat cleaver. Or maybe he could even escape from jail and get into a family home of four. Would the headline be better if there were no CCL holder in the store? I am just fine with the current headline.
 
Last edited:
jeffas69 said:
The highlighted may depend on the eventual overall outcome. Let's just say since he didn't kill anyone with the machet he would eventually get out of prison on parole. Years later he loses it again and this time he kills three people with a meat cleaver. Or maybe he could even escape from jail and get into a family home of four. Would the headline be better if there were no CCL holder in the store? I am just fine with the current headline.
Click to expand...

Well, when you put it that way, it seems OK. I had it in my mind that the guy would receive treatment, get on medication and live long enough to donate a kidney to a crippled child. The child, in turn, would live on to cure cancer and solve global warming.

I realize now I was just imposing my own optimistic worldview on an unknowable future course of events. Much easier if I assume the entire personhood of the attacker was captured by this one incident and predict nothing but tragedy thereafter. My only recourse now is to laud the reluctant hero and admire his ability to foresee so much in the short time he had to make his decision.

Let's hope the hero doesn't turn out to be a child molester. I couldn't handle the moral quandary.
 
marplots said:
Well, when you put it that way, it seems OK. I had it in my mind that the guy would receive treatment, get on medication and live long enough to donate a kidney to a crippled child. The child, in turn, would live on to cure cancer and solve global warming.

I realize now I was just imposing my own optimistic worldview on an unknowable future course of events. Much easier if I assume the entire personhood of the attacker was captured by this one incident and predict nothing but tragedy thereafter. My only recourse now is to laud the reluctant hero and admire his ability to foresee so much in the short time he had to make his decision.

Let's hope the hero doesn't turn out to be a child molester. I couldn't handle the moral quandary.
Click to expand...

Hehehe nice! Here is another. Say you ran into the man a week ago and asked him why he carried a gun. He says "In case i go down to get a cup of coffee and a maniac walks in swinging a machete and starts attacking people with it". You reply "You crazy old man what are the odds of that ever happening to you, why don't you just carry around a fire extinguisher and spray that in his face instead. He might save a child or cure cancer someday after all."
 
marplots said:
Not necessarily. Wouldn't the headline have been better with the word "subdued" instead of "killed?"

The thing about having a gun is it makes other options less attractive. Why would I spray a fire extinguisher in the attacker's face when I can shoot them instead? Isn't that why I carry the gun around anyhow, because I might want to shoot someone someday? They've already bought into the heuristic. We become prisoners of the hypotheticals playing in our heads.
Click to expand...

You're making it too complicated, what if the fire extinguisher didn't subdue him, and you got cut or killed? Or worse a loved one you had with you was hurt?

If you're carrying a gun around just to be able to have the chance to shoot someone, you probably shouldn't be carrying. I don't know anyone who carries for that purpose, as a matter of fact, killing that person was the last thing the hero wanted to do today, he'll never forget the horror of it. But thank God he was there.

If I've misunderstood, please correct me.
 
jeffas69 said:
Hehehe nice! Here is another. Say you ran into the man a week ago and asked him why he carried a gun. He says "In case i go down to get a cup of coffee and a maniac walks in swinging a machete and starts attacking people with it". You reply "You crazy old man what are the odds of that ever happening to you, why don't you just carry around a fire extinguisher and spray that in his face instead. He might save a child or cure cancer someday after all."
Click to expand...

That man is clairvoyant. On the upside, all the other old men carrying guns with that bizarre story really are nuts. Now that we can tell the two groups apart, we can make progress.

Thankfully, the danger is past. The threat put down like a rabid dog. I expect the hero will now retire his firearm and be happy not to have to lug around the extra weight. He will say, "Finally, I no longer have to endanger my grand kids or worry about someone using my own gun on me. Finally, I can set this burden aside and live out my remaining days in peace."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom