[KFlay1]

Originally Posted by DadBangr ↗

They are saying 1 shooter is dead and the other is critical. Hope he makes it so he can suffer.

He did

[Tadhgín]

Allah akbar

[alphawolf15]

Fucking trash glad one is dead, hope the other dies too

[StrategicNuclearMoose]

Never forget the #Bondicaust

16 million rabbi lives lost

[Lugia]

Originally Posted by joos ↗

While I agree the guy who disarmed is a champ for disarming the guy, he's also stupid for not doing anything then just putting the gun against the tree.

Oh fuck off. What was he supposed to do with an unloaded gun, knowing someone else was up there shooting at him? Run at him and try and hit him with it? And hopefully not get shot by police?

The dude is a hero, he put his life on the line to save others. End of story.

[techfreak76]

Shootin Innocent People is a absolute nogo!
We are all Human and Equal from wich country we came our Blood is also Red and we also have a Brain, 2 Eyes.... It is so sad when i read about a Shooting where the reason is Religion.

[beantown]

So weird to watch a mass shooting and the people are not running. They just look like confused deer in headlights. Unfortunately in the US it’s so common by shot #2 everyone knows what is happening. Run and ask questions later. The only thing that lessened the kill count is the hero, which you rarely see someone that brave, and the fact the shooters didn’t have AR style rifles. 15 deaths is horrifying but if they had the weapons we have it would have been considerably higher.

[snakedoc]

The amount of people that just stood there in the line of fire as the guy was shooting is just mind boggling… the the cops ran up there and start kenpo sweeping the leg to 20 different people lol… bloody hell

[RealityUnfolding]

Originally Posted by kellyhound ↗

Analysis of 14 mass shootings from 1964 to 2014 reveals consistent patterns among offenders.

All perpetrators were male, with a mean age of 32 years (range: 13–66).

This ignores pivotal years when mass migration took off exponentially. Since 2014, there have been 12 major terrorism incidents in Australia. That's just what is largely covered enough or labeled as such. Further, you use the older mass shooting stats, against newer, individual and non-mass shooting events in America later in this post.

Originally Posted by kellyhound ↗

How about going on a "crusade" for a better mental health care system, a better warning system in case of domestic violence as that can prevent way more killing than extremist nutcases, that always be there.

Why not both? Why do we have to sacrifice one for the other. It's a strange whataboutism to say "well, here's other crimes and those are bad too, so why don't we care about those instead". That's like saying you can only stop rape or stop murder, pick one.

Originally Posted by kellyhound ↗

For the U.S. multiple reports note that in recent years, white supremacists and other right-wing extremists (who often claim to hold Christian, or at least White Nationalist, religious views) account for the vast majority of all domestic extremism-related murders in the U.S.

Well, yeah. When you deny terrorism charges (such as in trans shooters), deny left-wing connections/labeling (Zizians) or deny an incident can be terror because of that one ridiculous argument that it requires the person to be in a position of power, then you can push and pick stats as you wish.

For example, in the Wieambilla shootings, they tried their hardest to make the white shooters terrorism, despite no actual terror ties. They did eventually drop it because of folie a deux being clear, but the fact they jumped to terrorism first, clarify later is the opposite of what they do when it involves a Muslim attack - caution the public about making terrorism connections, and often deny there were terrorism connections. AUS had evidence the son was getting radicalized and (tangent: was it due to internal pressure?) they dropped looking into them, and as far as it sounds, didn't investigate the family at the time.

It's no different than when the Democrats went on to screech how all violent crime stats were dominated by young, Black men age 17-25. And I don't mean majority, I mean 85%+ of violent crimes. So what did they do? Rally behind better educational programs and diversion efforts? No. They tucked those stats away in a subgroup of a subgroup of crime, now under gang crime, then blamed white people for dominating crime. So when you search mass shootings, it appears to be a bunch of whites, a lot right-wing nutjobs. But the reality is that nearly every day, and hundreds of times a year, it's a young, Black man committing a mass shooting. You can easily discern which ones will be buried outside of mass shooting stats with AP-directed media coverage to describe them as "altercation" or "targeted". Frankly, I think gang violence should be labeled domestic terrorism. That's the entire reason they do these things - public intimidation and fear. And for some reason, cartel violence isn't labeled terrorism, when it's exactly what it is by definition. If we were to include cartel violence, then it would definitely change the landscape of statistics. But alas, as it stands - pretty much the only people being labeled terrorism is anyone faintly right-leaning to SS dumbfucks, and the others aren't prosecuted as such.

Originally Posted by kellyhound ↗

While Islamist extremists have been responsible for some of the deadliest single attacks, right-wing extremists have been responsible for a much higher number of individual fatal incidents and a majority of deaths from terrorism-related incidents excluding the September 11, 2001, attacks.

Here's where you get a bit disingenuous. You compared Muslims in mass shootings in a 11 year old window first above then use modern singular incidents to include now to overrepresent white SS morons. Much like mass shooting stats are now manipulated, "right-wing" is both diluted and overrepresented. How many years did they call the Fort Hood shooting a "workplace violence" incident (which also denied survivors benefits)? Seven? How many other incidents are not recorded properly? The last stats I could even gather ended in 2016. Why? No one has done anything since the rise of left-wing and Muslim violence yet. Now, if we go by pure numbers of the 2016 Nation Institute anyway, 115 far right incidents (attacks planned/thwarted and successful) and 63 Islamic. Does the white dumbasses have a higher number? Yes. But why throw away per capita numbers? The fact that we are supposed to have very little Islamic extremists and yet they represent 1/3 of the pie (19 far-left) before the biggest jump in crimes says something. I won't even get started on the fact that the data says there were no left-wing attacks from 2017 until July 2025. That's insane. The Zizian attack by far-left transgender culties is not counted as a far-left attack? WTF?

Lastly, Australia has thwarted dozens of attacks and the US hundreds since 2014. That is the stat that matters just as much as how many were successful. The US pours billions a year into thwarting these attacks. Should we say it's not a problem, because they didn't get away with it?

As a footnote: taking AUS or US in a vacuum isn't going to cut it in these arguments anymore. Europe is also under constant barrage. When Muslims are sampled, a majority consistently agree it's acceptable to use violence for their faith. Now, whether they themselves would commit it is much smaller, but the fact majority supports it and we have increasing cases of terrorism (both successful and thwarted), it's time people stop painting them all as innocent bystanders at the mercy of a few.

[jacd]

Originally Posted by MentallyUnstable ↗

The guy who disarmed one of the shooters should have pulled the trigger on him. I get it, he might not have realised there were two, or he just might not be a person who wants to kill, but that guy was still a threat and if he's up to disarming him he really should have just ended the cunt.

And in the confusion of doing that put himself at even greater risk of being killed by the police. Hell the first Aussie on scene at the bridge was attacked physically & he wasn't even holding a rifle nor visibly middle eastern like Ahmed was! At least Ahmed al Ahmed disarmed the guy stopping his ability to shoot/kill even more people. Also the son on the bridge was also taking shots at him as well during that time. Thankfully the 2 hits he took didn't kill him. The other guy in white that threw bricks at the dad as he was retreating unarmed was killed by the son. Chaotic situation but he did the best he could in the moment which undoubtedly saved injuries & lives.