So if someone is sending a message to someone, lets say via gun violence, and lets say it's directed towards Is Mise or let's say it's towards people in the streets of Melbourne? I'm assuming that's all fine?

After all it's a form of communication isn't it? It just happens to be from someone else's perspective in terms of communication. So really, there can't and shouldn't be two sets of standards when it comes to gun violence.

Someone has clearly started the communication and really it's not very good. The overall content and quality being sent out is very poor.

One can also take this into consideration."Nationals Senator describes disturbing pro-gun video as ‘free speech’ on Q&A".

https://thenewdaily.com.au/entertainment/tv/2016/09/12/q-and-a-gun-culture/

Nathan,

He was a big, powerful bloke, moving fast and erratically. If nobody had had a gun, as police are entitled to carry, do you really think he wouldn't have stabbed or slashed those coppers ? That he would have had the upper hand simply by having a lethal weapon which he was intent on using ? Once he had incapacitated those coppers, would be have stopped, or gone into the nearest cafe and started on the patrons there ?

Live by violence, die by violence. Plenty of justification for that could be found in the Koran. As it happened, he killed 'only' one person, a well-respected, innocent person. Do you have any compassion for Sisto ? Or only for his killer ?

Joe

This is just another uncomfortable truth.
The facts appear to be that he had already killed and maimed, so there was no guessing his demeanor and his ability to do the unthinkable.
I can agree that the policeman, given all the training, was without a doubt, able to shoot a person in any spot on their body, arms and legs included.
Unfortunately, because I'm one of those people who say, had he not killed or injured anyone, try to shoot them in the leg or hand with the knife, but as he already unleashed his reign of terror, and I don't want such people out amongst the general population, and the fact that he was not worth the huge amount of money it was going to cost, with NO chance of rehabilitation, then he was better off dead.

Nathan,

You still haven't explained why it is wrong to use a gun, or any other lethal weapon, in the legal defence of one's own life or the life of others.

When police shoot a domestic perp with a knife , an inquiry is held by Police. ( "Was he a perp ?" "Yes , Chief Marshall Super Detective." "It's Legal. next case.")

If he needs shooting , why try to revive him? Why not be humane and use artillery like Kim Jong-un did to his uncle , more bang for all those bucks.

I guess it's only a matter of time before we see in Australia similar to the Kenyan "Somalian Islamic" Shopping Centre massacre. It seems the left are complicit here favoring "the Bourke St killer" rather than the police.

As Winston Smith said the hope is in the proles- the Australian people need to say "Reject the Politically Correct Left" otherwise things will get much worse- think movie "South Africa- The special task force".