# Glad I don't live in Australia



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 17, 2011)

I was stationed for awhile at HMAS Stirling, and spent some time in Perth, back in the 1980's.  Amazing city, wonderful people.  No disrespect intended.  But I am glad I do not live there.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wes...-bassendean-home/story-e6frg143-1226007160365



> *A HOME owner who shot two intruders at his house in Bassendean  on Monday night has been charged with possession of an unlicensed  firearm and possession of unlicensed ammunition. 				*



And it wasn't really a question of whether or not it was self-defense; it pretty clearly was...



> Police will allege that two men, aged 30 and 31, broke into the house in  Nurstead Avenue in Bassendean about 11pm on Monday night.
> 
> The  40-year-old resident of house, who was assaulted with an unknown object  by one of the men, armed himself with a shotgun before shooting the two  men.



Yeah, I'd be shooting at them also.  But a) we don't have any registration of shotguns here, and b) I wouldn't register if we did, and c) under no circumstances am I prohibited from defending myself with deadly force after someone breaks into my home and attacks me.  I would not want to live in the country that had a, b, or c as offenses.


----------



## dancingalone (Feb 17, 2011)

I am curious how many states in the US would also charge the homeowner with a crime for defending his home.  Not all states have a castle doctrine.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Feb 17, 2011)

I think the lesson learned here, is not to not own a gun and not defend yourself in Australia.
Its more of make sure you have a shovel and a good spot to bury the bodies so you dont face unfair punishment for rightfully defending yourself.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 17, 2011)

The charge wasn't murder or assault, the charge was unlawful possession.  Nothing in the charges precludes self-defense _per se_.  I'm no expert on criminal law, but wouldn't someone in the US face the same charges for home defense with a prohibited weapon, say a fully automatic weapon without the proper permit?

Granted, I find it completely unreasonable that a shotgun would be so considered, but that isn't really the point in dispute.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Feb 17, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> The charge wasn't murder or assault, the charge was unlawful possession. Nothing in the charges precludes self-defense _per se_. I'm no expert on criminal law, but wouldn't someone in the US face the same charges for home defense with a prohibited weapon, say a fully automatic weapon without the proper permit?
> 
> Granted, I find it completely unreasonable that a shotgun would be so considered, but that isn't really the point in dispute.


 
Unreasonable laws should be ignored in my opinion.
I do however get that this is another country, culture and all... and like Bill says I would not want to live there, although I wouldnt mind visiting to explore all the incredible environment that Australia has to offer..


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 17, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I am curious how many states in the US would also charge the homeowner with a crime for defending his home.  Not all states have a castle doctrine.



I am guessing (and it is only a guess) that not many states would have an issue with a person defending themselves with deadly force inside their home against intruders who had assaulted them.  However, some cities would.  Chicago, NYC, and some others, I'm sure.  However, not Washington, DC anymore as far as I know, since the recent Supreme Court decision on the 2nd Amendment, and other similar city ordinances forbidding firearms are likely to fall as a result as well.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 17, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> The charge wasn't murder or assault, the charge was unlawful possession.  Nothing in the charges precludes self-defense _per se_.  I'm no expert on criminal law, but wouldn't someone in the US face the same charges for home defense with a prohibited weapon, say a fully automatic weapon without the proper permit?
> 
> Granted, I find it completely unreasonable that a shotgun would be so considered, but that isn't really the point in dispute.



Good point, but consider that a person does not require a machine gun to defend themselves from home invasion.  On the other hand, not allowing a firearm at all is a bit of a different situation.  So perhaps it would have been legal if the homeowner had defended himself with, say, a stick.

I suppose my objection comes from the fact that both shotguns and ammunition are required to be registered before they can be legally owned in Perth, Western Australia (apparently).  Not something that would make me want to live there, although as I said, I visited once on an extended military operation and it is a lovely place full of wonderful people.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Feb 17, 2011)

Isn't this like saying you're "Glad you don't live in New York or Chicago?" Both of those cities have severe restrictions on owning the handguns many of us in other parts of the USA take for granted. If you shoot somebody with an unregistered weapon there, you'll face charges.

And, although I agree with Lucky Boxer that we can choose to ignore laws we find unreasonable, we must do so with the full acceptance that we may wind up going to jail or paying a fine when we decide to do so. A whole lot of civil rights activists had to spend some time in the pokey before we got rid of Jim Crow.

Out of curiosity, does anybody know what the penalty in Oz is for an unregistered shotgun?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 17, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Isn't this like saying you're "Glad you don't live in New York or Chicago?" Both of those cities have severe restrictions on owning the handguns many of us in other parts of the USA take for granted. If you shoot somebody with an unregistered weapon there, you'll face charges.



Yes, it is.  I'm glad I don't live in Chicago or NYC either.  Also Australia.



> And, although I agree with Lucky Boxer that we can choose to ignore laws we find unreasonable, we must do so with the full acceptance that we may wind up going to jail or paying a fine when we decide to do so. A whole lot of civil rights activists had to spend some time in the pokey before we got rid of Jim Crow.
> 
> Out of curiosity, does anybody know what the penalty in Oz is for an unregistered shotgun?



I do not know, but I found this interesting thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia



> State laws govern the possession and use of firearms in Australia.  These laws were largely aligned under the 1996 National Agreement on  Firearms. Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a  Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18.  Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.
> Before someone can buy a firearm, he or she must obtain a *Permit To Acquire*.  The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first  issued. In some states (e.g. Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales),  this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class.  For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest  control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. *Self-defense is not  accepted as a reason for issuing a licence*, even though it may be legal  under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for  self-defense.[2]



So, just be clear, you can't register a shotgun for the specific purpose of self-defense in Australia.  You might be able to register one for other purposes and just happen to end up using it for self-defense, though.

Perth is in Western Australia:

http://www.police.wa.gov.au/Ourservices/Firearms/Legislation/tabid/1621/Default.aspx

I looked over the laws, but unlike the USA, they don't seem to list the range of possible punishments.


----------



## Empty Hands (Feb 17, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I suppose my objection comes from the fact that both shotguns and ammunition are required to be registered before they can be legally owned in Perth, Western Australia (apparently).



I agree.  Even if you are for gun control (I am not) the shotgun is the last weapon you would want to ban, because it is very effective for home defense, poses little risk to neighbors, and isn't very useful for street crime.

However, that is actually a separate discussion.  In this case, the fact that the homeowner defended himself from an attacker is a distraction and clouds the discussion, since he is not being charged for defending himself.


----------



## wayneshin (Feb 17, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I suppose my objection comes from the fact that both shotguns and ammunition are required to be registered before they can be legally owned in Perth, Western Australia (apparently). Not something that would make me want to live there, although as I said, I visited once on an extended military operation and it is a lovely place full of wonderful people.


 
Your objection comes from the fact that you have been born and raised in a culture which lives with the second amendment. Over here these items are supposed to be registered and most Australians don't have a issue with that.   Our gun laws were tightened severely after the Port Arthur massacre when 27(?) people were killed and I for one applaud any measure that stops such a thing happening here again.


----------



## K-man (Feb 17, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I was stationed for awhile at HMAS Stirling, and spent some time in Perth, back in the 1980's. Amazing city, wonderful people. No disrespect intended. But I am glad I do not live there.
> 
> http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wes...-bassendean-home/story-e6frg143-1226007160365
> 
> ...


Well Bill, I guess we'll have to agree to be different. And you won't be pleased to know we now have less guns in the community than when you were here back in the 80s. I can't believe anyone would choose to live in a counrty based on the right to have an illegal weapon! You see I have a 1 in 100,000 chance of dying from a gunshot wound in Australia. You have 10 in 100,000 or depending in what state you live up to 20 in 100,000. 

That doesn't sound many until you look at the population. You guys lose about 35,000 people a year. We lose about 250! Of those more than 2/3 are suicide. That means we have about 80 deaths a year from accident, homicide and police shootings. About 17,000 Americans kill themselves with firearms each year. That leaves about 18,000 compared with our 80.

I gave my rifle up years ago. I just wasn't using it for hunting any more.  I could have one tomorrow if I choose, but why?  Strange to you guys I know, but we don't see the need to have guns to protect ourselves. Apart from accidents, very few of our shootings involve people not involved in criminal activity! What I mean is, the crims shoot each other. There are few innocent victims.

We cannot possess a firearm for self protection. We can have a firearm to hunt or if you're a farmer you are exempted from a lot of regulations.

BTW, each time I have been in the US, I really haven't felt the need for a firearm. Last time there I rode the Subway at night, I wandered through Central Park, I wandered all around Harlem with my wife, not a problem.

Now, let's look at self defence. I am entitled to use reasonable force. Using a shotgun against a baseball bat is not reasonable force. To be honest we don't cop a lot of aggrevated burglary anyway.

The guy in Perth was stupid. Unless he had convictions leading to him not being legally able to own a firearm, why wouldn't he register it? It doesn't say what the circumstances were. Did the intruders know he had drugs on the premises? 
And from the perspective of a LEO. For example, knowing whether or not there are likely to be firearms if they are called to a domestic or if they pull over a motor vehicle, has to be a big factor in the way they approach the matter.

If I shoot someone I would expect to go to jail. I sleep at night with the windows open, and the door just snibbed. Why would I want to have everyone in the neighbourhood running round with guns?

There are often threads posted about how some people have the temerity to suggest that there should be more gun control and I keep well clear. It is up to Americans to decide if they want unregulated firearms or not. To be honest it is a totally different mentality that I can't comprehend. So I would respectfully suggest that you guys keep all the guns over there in "Fortress America" and we'll enloy the relaxed lifestyle to which we have become accustomed without worrying about whether on not we will be shot, robbed, stabbed mugged or whatever. Strange but true, the majority of Australians don't want guns in the community. :asian:


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 17, 2011)

That was very well put, K-man and I do agree with you that there are dstinct cultural forces at work when we look at this topic.

In fact, on a 'moral' level I agree entirely that we would all be better off without lethal weaponry to hand, especially easy  to use lethal weaponry.

However, my touchstone phrases when it comes to decent citizens being armed are twofold.

The first is that an armed society is a polite society.  If you are likely to end up with a sword in your ribs you learn quickly to guard your tongue - admittedly this does not seem to hold true in America and I have no explanation for that.

The second and more important is something I stole from Tolkien in my youth.  It's a statement by Eowyn that is intended to speak about women but applies equally well across all genders and ages viz those without weapons can still die by them.


----------



## Carol (Feb 17, 2011)

I can potentially walk or drive down the street with all kinds of goodies -- concealed or not -- and not be afoul of the law.

In less than 2 weeks, I'll be taking a job in Massachusetts. If for some reason the job offer falls through and I end up staying where I am, my job still moves to Mass...my company got bought and my office is closing permanently.    My carry rights will be eroded to the point where I cannot even carry pepper spray in the car on my daily commute.  

The fact that I'm a good citizen that doesn't cause LE any trouble   is irrelevant.  What I am allowed to carry in my home city, about 15 km away, is irrelevant.  The fact that I will be paying Mass. income taxes set by politicians that I cannot vote for, and for services that I cannot receive is irrelevant.   

You good folks in Australia and the UK can run your respective countries any way you wish.  I may get around to disagreeing with you one of these days, but for the time being, I'm far more concerned about my own.


----------



## mook jong man (Feb 18, 2011)

No offence , but down here , we're all glad we don't live in America.

Look we understand The Great Southern Land is not to everybody's taste.
We like it , but realise it does have it's short comings.


The women aren't all that much to look at I'm afraid.










The tourist areas can get quite crowded and polluted.









It can be hard to get a beer large enough to satisfy a man sized thirst , so we are forced to drink out of these small bottles called stubbies.







Australian food and wine tends to be bland and unappetising , and restaurants are quite primitive by world standards as they lack such basics as walls and a roof , and whats with the big ugly red rock in the background?








The weather can be very annoying at times , all that sunshine can cause people to become quite depressed , as we all walk around thinking , Gee , if only we could carry around a 357 magnum or an M16 like they do in other countries.







Yes I know , the place is an absolute hell hole , sometimes I don't know how we can stand it .


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 18, 2011)

Hi Bill,

To be frank here, if you had been raised in Australia you'd probably be just as confused by the propensity of Americans to look to an outdated and rather openly interpreted piece of the Bill of Rights to justify their personal needs to carry lethal weaponry, even to deliberately carry it in concealed carry options. Frankly, to the Australian mentality, the idea of carrying a gun around, concealed, means either you're an under-cover police officer, or a criminal. If the former, okay, if the latter, not someone to emulate or be associated with.

Personally, to me it comes across as a fear-based responce. In other words, they all have guns, if I don't have one (or two.... or three.... or six), then they'll all be able to get me! It's the same idea that drove the Cold War and the Nuclear Arms Race (which is where the cultural psychology seems to come from.... or vice versa, really), we have to have spies and nuclear weapons because they have them, but now because we have them, they got more, so now we need more than them, and so on. It's an unwinnable situation, all that happens is the society becomes more and more insular, holding themselves back for fear of what the other guy might have, while ironically telling themselves that they are safer, or more powerful, leading to some major cultural psychological ego issues.



Empty Hands said:


> I agree. Even if you are for gun control (I am not) the shotgun is the last weapon you would want to ban, because it is very effective for home defense, poses little risk to neighbors, and isn't very useful for street crime.
> 
> However, that is actually a separate discussion. In this case, the fact that the homeowner defended himself from an attacker is a distraction and clouds the discussion, since he is not being charged for defending himself.


 
I agree it's another conversation, are you really suggesting that a shotgun isn't useful for criminal activity? First thing that pops into my mind is using it to hold-up a store... 



LuckyKBoxer said:


> *Unreasonable laws should be ignored in my opinion.*
> I do however get that this is another country, culture and all... and like Bill says I would not want to live there, although I wouldnt mind visiting to explore all the incredible environment that Australia has to offer..


 
Uh, really? First off, such thought processes are a good way to end up in jail.

But let's look at the statement you just made in context, shall we? What makes it unreasonable? In Australia, you have to have a legal, justifiable reason to have a weapon. And that does not include "I want to kill someone who comes into my house!" Legal, justifiable reasons include being a farmer to protect against pests and for other use around the farm (with regard to livestock, so there's no confusion here), or being a hunter, with the requisite licences. Gun crime is minimalist, and primarily contained within the small criminal community (between themselves, as stated by K-Man above). Basically, for a community as relatively safe as Australia, with the amount of gun-control in effect, having an unregistered weapon in your home for home defence is not considered a reasonable reason. So the law is perfectly reasonable.

So you know, though, we have far more issues with knives than guns, and there have been major crackdowns on those in recent times. And as this (as well as gun laws) are supported by the vast majority of Australians, I suppose we'd consider such things fairly reasonable.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 18, 2011)

K-man said:


> That doesn't sound many until you look at the population. You guys lose about 35,000 people a year. We lose about 250! Of those more than 2/3 are suicide. That means we have about 80 deaths a year from accident, homicide and police shootings. About 17,000 Americans kill themselves with firearms each year. That leaves about 18,000 compared with our 80.



Population of USA: 300 million
Population of Australia: 21 million



> I gave my rifle up years ago. I just wasn't using it for hunting any more.  I could have one tomorrow if I choose, but why?  Strange to you guys I know, but we don't see the need to have guns to protect ourselves. Apart from accidents, very few of our shootings involve people not involved in criminal activity! What I mean is, the crims shoot each other. There are few innocent victims.



So you're willing to be one of the 'few' innocent victims?



> Now, let's look at self defence. I am entitled to use reasonable force. Using a shotgun against a baseball bat is not reasonable force.



If I'm an 80 year old man and a 20 year old comes at me with a baseball bat, a shotgun is more than reasonable.  If I'm a woman and a man comes at me with a baseball bat, a shotgun is perfectly understandable.  If I'm woken from a deep sleep, groggy, scared out of my wits, can't find my glasses, and a strange man is pounding me with a baseball bat, a shotgun seems pretty reasonable to me.  Reasonable force?  Self-defense is not about matching force with force, ability with ability, being 'fair'.  If that were the case, we'd not use martial arts training to defend ourselves, it gives us an 'unfair' advantage over the untrained.



> The guy in Perth was stupid. Unless he had convictions leading to him not being legally able to own a firearm, why wouldn't he register it? It doesn't say what the circumstances were. Did the intruders know he had drugs on the premises?
> And from the perspective of a LEO. For example, knowing whether or not there are likely to be firearms if they are called to a domestic or if they pull over a motor vehicle, has to be a big factor in the way they approach the matter.



Well, there's the reason that I would not want to live in Australia.  Blame the victim.  He must have something to hide.  He must be a drug dealer.  Yes, that's it.  The poor, poor criminal must be protected.



> If I shoot someone I would expect to go to jail. I sleep at night with the windows open, and the door just snibbed. Why would I want to have everyone in the neighbourhood running round with guns?



I don't know.  I would not want everyone 'running around with guns' but then I don't 'run around with guns' either.  But I own them, and I want to continue owning them.



> There are often threads posted about how some people have the temerity to suggest that there should be more gun control and I keep well clear. It is up to Americans to decide if they want unregulated firearms or not. To be honest it is a totally different mentality that I can't comprehend. So I would respectfully suggest that you guys keep all the guns over there in "Fortress America" and we'll enloy the relaxed lifestyle to which we have become accustomed without worrying about whether on not we will be shot, robbed, stabbed mugged or whatever. Strange but true, the majority of Australians don't want guns in the community. :asian:



I'm totally cool with that.  I would not dare tell Australians how to live their lives.  As I've said, I've been there and I like it a lot.  I'd love to visit again some day.  However, my original statement stands.  I would not want to live there, and the reason is primarily because I would not be allowed to own guns or defend myself with deadly force if the need ever arose.  You have every right to run your country as you see fit; and I have every right not to want to live in that society.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 18, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> To be frank here, if you had been raised in Australia you'd probably be just as confused by the propensity of Americans to look to an outdated and rather openly interpreted piece of the Bill of Rights to justify their personal needs to carry lethal weaponry, even to deliberately carry it in concealed carry options. Frankly, to the Australian mentality, the idea of carrying a gun around, concealed, means either you're an under-cover police officer, or a criminal. If the former, okay, if the latter, not someone to emulate or be associated with.



I was actually just referring to the ability to keep a firearm in my home, not carry one around.  I don't carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise.



> Personally, to me it comes across as a fear-based responce. In other words, they all have guns, if I don't have one (or two.... or three.... or six), then they'll all be able to get me! It's the same idea that drove the Cold War and the Nuclear Arms Race (which is where the cultural psychology seems to come from.... or vice versa, really), we have to have spies and nuclear weapons because they have them, but now because we have them, they got more, so now we need more than them, and so on. It's an unwinnable situation, all that happens is the society becomes more and more insular, holding themselves back for fear of what the other guy might have, while ironically telling themselves that they are safer, or more powerful, leading to some major cultural psychological ego issues.



I agree that it is fear-based.  And fear is an utterly reasonable response to facts.  In the USA, many criminals who invade homes are armed.  If I am not armed, I am at the mercy of the person or persons who break in; they can kill me or not kill me at their discretion.  I do not want my living or dying to be at the discretion of a criminal armed with a handgun, drunk or high, scared out of his wits and trying to show his manhood off to his buddies.  No, thanks.  Fear?  Yes, fear.  And I'd be foolish if I thought that my fear was not reality-based.  I have only to Google News for 'home invasion' to see the facts.  Fear?  Yes, fear.  And that fear is entirely reasonable.  Only a foolish person ignores reasonable fear.



> I agree it's another conversation, are you really suggesting that a shotgun isn't useful for criminal activity? First thing that pops into my mind is using it to hold-up a store...



I'm sure criminals use shotguns, but honestly, most of them in the USA use pistols of various sorts.  They can conceal it until they draw it and announce the robbery.  It's hard to walk down the street with a shotgun in your pants.


----------



## seasoned (Feb 18, 2011)

mook jong man said:


> No offence , but down here , we're all glad we don't live in America.
> 
> Look we understand The Great Southern Land is not to everybody's taste.
> We like it , but realise it does have it's short comings.
> ...


After looking at your pictures, even if you guys had guns there, where would you carry them? The weather is not conducive for carry, you need some bulky coats and sweaters.


----------



## mook jong man (Feb 18, 2011)

seasoned said:


> After looking at your pictures, even if you guys had guns there, where would you carry them? The weather is not conducive for carry, you need some bulky coats and sweaters.


 
Well thats right Seasoned , it does present a unique problem.

You can imagine the embarrassment that could occur if I wandered up to you on Bondi Beach with a Beretta down the front of my Speedo's.
Instead of admiring my concealed carry , you might just think I was glad to see you.


----------



## K-man (Feb 18, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Population of USA: 300 million
> Population of Australia: 21 million
> 
> That's why I used no. per 100,000.    The US rate is 10 times Australia's.
> ...


 
Owning all those guns certainly makes life safer in the US! 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita



> I agree that it is fear-based. And fear is an utterly reasonable response to facts. In the USA, many criminals who invade homes are armed. If I am not armed, I am at the mercy of the person or persons who break in; they can kill me or not kill me at their discretion. I do not want my living or dying to be at the discretion of a criminal armed with a handgun, drunk or high, scared out of his wits and trying to show his manhood off to his buddies. No, thanks. Fear? Yes, fear. And I'd be foolish if I thought that my fear was not reality-based. I have only to Google News for 'home invasion' to see *the facts*. Fear? Yes, fear. And that fear is entirely reasonable. Only a foolish person ignores reasonable fear.


I went to Google to see what you are worrying about. It says it is very difficult to estimate the numbers of home invasions and that the statistics they do quote include burglary. However as to the "facts", I am very happy to take your word for it. If the danger is really that high where you live, I most certainly wouldn't want to live there either.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 18, 2011)

> Now, let's look at self defence. I am entitled to use reasonable force. Using a shotgun against a baseball bat is not reasonable force.


 
Sorry I have to call WTF?? where i see it. 

A baseball bat being used as a weapon is deadly force. It is absolutely reasonable to shoot someone who is trying to bash your brains in with a baseball bat.

and this one:



> In Australia, you have to have a legal, justifiable reason to have a weapon. And that does not include "I want to kill someone who comes into my house!"


 
What? So two strange people breaking into your home is not a situation where a gun would be appropriate? If they are armed with a gun or not (a kitchen knife in a burglars hands..or a bat..is your life on the line people..think for a minute) burglary of an occuped dwelling is an extremely dangerous situation.

Some of these statements leave me scratching my head. You guys are martial artists? I would think that we would have a better developed appreciation of just how dangerous situations like these are.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 18, 2011)

K-man said:


> Owning all those guns certainly makes life safer in the US!
> 
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita



Lovely information in the aggregate.  When you wake up in bed at night and someone has just kicked in your front door and is stomping up the stairs towards you armed with a gun and high on crack, you may find yourself less concerned about the overall damage guns do to society than with preserving your own life.  Unless you can placidly go to your grave knowing that at least you were not part of the problem.  Me, I prefer to live.



> I went to Google to see what you are worrying about. It says it is very difficult to estimate the numbers of home invasions and that the statistics they do quote include burglary. However as to the "facts", I am very happy to take your word for it. If the danger is really that high where you live, I most certainly wouldn't want to live there either.



Simply go to Google News and search for 'homeowner shoots intruder'.  Simple as that.  In the USA, citizens defend themselves nearly every day with guns.  Taking the guns away from law-abiding citizens mean - directly - that those news reports you see today will tomorrow read "homeowner killed by intruder" in many cases.   If you're for gun control, you are essentially saying you want those victims to die, and the intruders to kill them.  Because after all, the drug laws don't stop criminals from having drugs, so the gun laws won't stop criminals from having guns. Fair?


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 18, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Sorry I have to call WTF?? where i see it.
> 
> A baseball bat being used as a weapon is deadly force. It is absolutely reasonable to shoot someone who is trying to bash your brains in with a baseball bat.
> 
> ...


 
Oh, we do have quite an understanding of the realities of the danger of a baseball bat assault, a home invasion, or the like.... but we also have an understanding of our own culture, and frankly none of the above are high enough likelihoods to establish justification of a shotgun. As K-Man said, Bill may not want to live in Australia as he isn't allowed to own a gun for home protection, but the reality is that if he lived here, that "need" wouldn't be a part of the equation. We really just don't have a gun culture, not even in the criminal element to a great degree.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Lovely information in the aggregate. When you wake up in bed at night and someone has just kicked in your front door and is stomping up the stairs towards you armed with a gun and high on crack, you may find yourself less concerned about the overall damage guns do to society than with preserving your own life. Unless you can placidly go to your grave knowing that at least you were not part of the problem. Me, I prefer to live.


 
Bill, really, this is just not happening in Australia. This is why I said initially that if you had been raised here, you would most likely be on the opposite side of the argument.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Simply go to Google News and search for 'homeowner shoots intruder'. Simple as that.* In the USA, citizens defend themselves nearly every day with guns.* Taking the guns away from law-abiding citizens mean - directly - that those news reports you see today will tomorrow read "homeowner killed by intruder" in many cases. If you're for gun control, you are essentially saying you want those victims to die, and the intruders to kill them. Because after all, the drug laws don't stop criminals from having drugs, so the gun laws won't stop criminals from having guns. Fair?


 
Exactly what I've bolded there, Bill, "In the USA...." You are discussing the laws of Australia with the idea that living here is the same as living in the US. It's not. Really, it's not. There's a reason we have the laws we do.

And really, Bill, no-one is saying they want victims to die instead of the bad guys, but you need to understand that you are discussing a non-existant scenario (living in the US with Australian laws, or living in Australia with Australian laws, but a US criminal culture and society). Pick one, because as of now, your entire line of reasoning is that you can't imagine a non-American way of life no matter where you live. Australia is not the US.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 18, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Oh, we do have quite an understanding of the realities of the danger of a baseball bat assault, a home invasion, or the like.... but we also have an understanding of our own culture, and frankly none of the above are high enough likelihoods to establish justification of a shotgun.


 
Must suck when you are one of those "Statistical Anomalies".


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 18, 2011)

I'll put it this way then. A big part of my job, in teaching self defence to my students, is to make sure they are as well-prepared for the potential situations they may encounter, right? During each year, I ensure that knife defence is covered more regularly than most other topics/areas, we also spend some time on baseball bat defence. Pistol defence really doesn't get a look in.

Unless you are in the criminal fraternities, violence with a gun is so rare as to have a single incident with no fatalities making national news in a lot of occasions. Just because guns are potentially incredibly dangerous, that is no reason for me to increase the amount of time we spend going against them, as it is just taking time away from what could potentially be more important to my students well-being and survival.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 18, 2011)

It's not an issue of "he may have a gun so I need a gun" IMO. A knife, a bat, a golf club etc used as a weapon is deadly force. If I knew there was a good chance I was going to be stabbed by an intruder, i'd prefer a gun to defend myself than some "knife defense" techniques which are a long shot regardless of how skilled you are. Just ask Arkadiy Stepankovskiy...if he wasnt dead.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 18, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Bill, really, this is just not happening in Australia. This is why I said initially that if you had been raised here, you would most likely be on the opposite side of the argument.



Here's the situation.  The news story I quoted says a man's home was invaded and he shot the intruder.  The intruder was injured and arrested, and the homeowner was arrested as well.

I don't see that as acceptable.  I understand your point about Australian law being different than US law, and Australian crime being different than US crime, but this set of circumstances is what I based my initial statement on, not relative crime rates in the two nations.  If a man breaks into my home and I am in fear of my life, and my government says I may not own a shotgun for self-defense, that is a place in which I do not want to live.

I agree with previous statements that if I had been born and raised in Australia, I'd feel differently. I'm sure that is true.  But I can only base my feelings on the person I am, not the person I might have been if I had been born somewhere else.  The person I am does not like the idea of a government that forbids its citizens the right to own guns specifically for self-defense.  That's no judgment on Australia or Australians or the relative crime rates between the two countries; it is a statement of my own feelings about where I'd prefer to live and not live. I repeat - I am glad I do not live in Australia, as nice a place as it is.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 18, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> I'll put it this way then. A big part of my job, in teaching self defence to my students, is to make sure they are as well-prepared for the potential situations they may encounter, right? During each year, I ensure that knife defence is covered more regularly than most other topics/areas, we also spend some time on baseball bat defence. Pistol defence really doesn't get a look in.
> 
> Unless you are in the criminal fraternities, violence with a gun is so rare as to have a single incident with no fatalities making national news in a lot of occasions. Just because guns are potentially incredibly dangerous, that is no reason for me to increase the amount of time we spend going against them, as it is just taking time away from what could potentially be more important to my students well-being and survival.



Consider the elderly, the disabled, the untrained in martial arts.  Given that they have the same right to survive as those who are physically fit, young, and capable of defending themselves, it seems unfair to deprive them of the one weapon which is demonstrably an 'force equalizer' to defend themselves with.

It was said of the Colt Peacemaker pistol, _"God made men.  Colonel Colt made them equal."
_


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 18, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> It's not an issue of "he may have a gun so I need a gun" IMO. A knife, a bat, a golf club etc used as a weapon is deadly force. If I knew there was a good chance I was going to be stabbed by an intruder, i'd prefer a gun to defend myself than some "knife defense" techniques which are a long shot regardless of how skilled you are. Just ask Arkadiy Stepankovskiy...if he wasnt dead.


 
Hmm, not really the point I was making either. My point was an indication of how far removed from a gun culture we have here, to the point that the law feels that firearms for home protection is not justified, and really, we agree.

And really, do you think that a gun would have saved him? The stories are no longer available (being 6 years past now), but the comments indicate a knife assault. There have been plenty of occasions where the person with the gun was injured/stabbed/killed by a knifeman because they were in the knifeman's range. If they were in the gunman's range, they would be out of the knife's (immediate range). It's been shown many times that even if the knifeman is within about 21 feet, there is a high likelihood of him covering the distance and killing the gunman... so the point raised here about how a gun would help is....?



Bill Mattocks said:


> Here's the situation. The news story I quoted says a man's home was invaded and he shot the intruder. The intruder was injured and arrested, and the homeowner was arrested as well.
> 
> I don't see that as acceptable. I understand your point about Australian law being different than US law, and Australian crime being different than US crime, but this set of circumstances is what I based my initial statement on, not relative crime rates in the two nations. If a man breaks into my home and I am in fear of my life, and my government says I may not own a shotgun for self-defense, that is a place in which I do not want to live.
> 
> I agree with previous statements that if I had been born and raised in Australia, I'd feel differently. I'm sure that is true. But I can only base my feelings on the person I am, not the person I might have been if I had been born somewhere else. The person I am does not like the idea of a government that forbids its citizens the right to own guns specifically for self-defense. That's no judgment on Australia or Australians or the relative crime rates between the two countries; it is a statement of my own feelings about where I'd prefer to live and not live. I repeat - I am glad I do not live in Australia, as nice a place as it is.


 
If you're going to be complaining about the differences in laws between the two nations, then the relative culture is highly relevant. Being acceptable to you doesn't seem to me to be relevant, honestly. This is an entirely hypothetical scenario you're dealing with here, looking at "if you live here, and someone breaks into your house, and you feel threatened, and you're not allowed to have a shotgun, that's unacceptable"... I do have to reiterate, the odds of such a home invasion is slightly better than winning the lottery here. Your feelings are based on a non-existant environment here, home invasion is so rare that this story has made news to you over there. Honestly, more people meet violent deaths here from hitting their heads on concrete after being knocked out in a weaponless assault, or interaction with a bouncer.

Really, if you did live in Australia, you may find that, as there is no need to have a shotgun in your home, you have a much more relaxed life. It could be one of the best decisions you could make. If you were to move here, you would do so for a number of reasons, most likely one would be for the Australian lifestyle.... which is why there isn't a need for shotguns in houses for home defence. That's really an inescapable aspect here, it doesn't have relevance to your personal approach to home protection in the US, to live here would be to put you into an Australian lifestyle, which invalidates your need for having one in the first place.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Consider the elderly, the disabled, the untrained in martial arts. Given that they have the same right to survive as those who are physically fit, young, and capable of defending themselves, it seems unfair to deprive them of the one weapon which is demonstrably an 'force equalizer' to defend themselves with.
> 
> It was said of the Colt Peacemaker pistol, _"God made men. Colonel Colt made them equal."_


 
So your proposal is to give elderly, disabled, untrained people guns? Again, I don't really agree with that. A gun in the hands of someone physically limited to handle it is not really something I'm fond of the idea of, honestly. Add to that that I'm not depriving them, nor is the govenrment, there simply isn't a cogent argument for a need for them. There may be a tiny fraction of isolated cases, but that is not justification for changing the policies of weapon control here, as, once again, this is not the US.

And that phrase is a version of a marketing slogan from the mid-late 1800's. I don't buy it's relevance in this context at all.


----------



## girlbug2 (Feb 18, 2011)

Just to be fair (and for the record), Australians and Americans are much more alike than not. (in my decidedly un-humble opinion). There are a good number of Australians living in my corner of California who say it's almost like "home" here.

I've never asked them about their opinions on gun control. But they mustn't have a real problem with it, or they'd never have moved to the paradise that is The OC :uhyeah:. In the same vein, Americans were the fourth-largest demographic to visit Australia in 2010, just behind Western Europeans. Obviously we like Australia.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 18, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> If you're going to be complaining about the differences in laws between the two nations, then the relative culture is highly relevant. Being acceptable to you doesn't seem to me to be relevant, honestly. This is an entirely hypothetical scenario you're dealing with here, looking at "if you live here, and someone breaks into your house, and you feel threatened, and you're not allowed to have a shotgun, that's unacceptable"... I do have to reiterate, the odds of such a home invasion is slightly better than winning the lottery here. Your feelings are based on a non-existant environment here, home invasion is so rare that this story has made news to you over there. Honestly, more people meet violent deaths here from hitting their heads on concrete after being knocked out in a weaponless assault, or interaction with a bouncer.



Being acceptable to me is highly relevant to what is acceptable to me.  Period.  I stated that *I* am glad I don't live in Australia, thus the only criteria I need apply are my own.  Personal preference and all that.  I did not attack Australia, state that they are evil or bad or wrong for having the laws they do, or otherwise offer an opinion on what's wrong with Australia.  I stated that I would not want to live there, and stated my reasons why.  My reasons are my reasons - that's as relevant as it gets.

You seem to be arguing that I'm not allowed to have an opinion on living in Australia because I don't live in Australia.  Trust me, I'm allowed to entertain any opinion I like.



> Really, if you did live in Australia, you may find that, as there is no need to have a shotgun in your home, you have a much more relaxed life. It could be one of the best decisions you could make. If you were to move here, you would do so for a number of reasons, most likely one would be for the Australian lifestyle.... which is why there isn't a need for shotguns in houses for home defence. That's really an inescapable aspect here, it doesn't have relevance to your personal approach to home protection in the US, to live here would be to put you into an Australian lifestyle, which invalidates your need for having one in the first place.



A man broke into the person's home whom I cited.  He defended his life with a shotgun, which I find entirely acceptable.  If I were in Australia and I were in his position, I might have died, since I tend to be a law-abider and hence would not have had a firearm.  I find that personally unacceptable.  You can list all the lovely things about Australia you like; and I agree with them; as I've stated, Australia is a lovely place in my experience.  However, the facts are these.  The man's house was broken into, he defended his life with a shotgun, and now he's been arrested.  I would not want that to happen to me.



> So your proposal is to give elderly, disabled, untrained people guns? Again, I don't really agree with that. A gun in the hands of someone physically limited to handle it is not really something I'm fond of the idea of, honestly. Add to that that I'm not depriving them, nor is the govenrment, there simply isn't a cogent argument for a need for them. There may be a tiny fraction of isolated cases, but that is not justification for changing the policies of weapon control here, as, once again, this is not the US.



You'd be fond of it if you were in a wheelchair and an armed thug broke into your house, threatening your life and demanding your prescription drugs, I'd wager.  It's all very well to look at the big picture, but when a criminal has a gun pointed at you, perspective changes rather quickly. I tend to doubt you'd shrug and say _"Well, go ahead and shoot me, it's best for society that I not be able to defend myself anyway."_



> And that phrase is a version of a marketing slogan from the mid-late 1800's. I don't buy it's relevance in this context at all.



The relevance is this - any form of martial arts requires a certain amount of physical ability and dexterity.  Although martial arts training can be an excellent force multiplier, it still requires a basic level of ability; ability which the most vulnerable in our societies do not necessarily possess.  A knife, a bat, or any other form of non-projectile weapon likewise requires both skill and physical ability to use effectively.  Grandma in her wheelchair is not likely to be able to master the skills needed to disarm a knife or gun-wielding attacker.  But anyone who has use of their arms can use a firearm effectively.  I'm not advocating that they not be trained, but I am arguing that as a force equalizer, a firearm is unmatched.  It puts equalizing power in the hands of those who otherwise would be completely helpless at the hands of an attacker - if they wish to avail themselves of it, and if it is legal to do so where they live.

So yes, Colonel Colt made men equal.  True then and true today.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 18, 2011)

The old 21' drill is predominantly about being ambushed by an unknown threat regardless of the weapon used. The Tueller drill is about awareness and initiative, not about the advantages of a knife. Someone within 21' could bash you head in with a baseball bat before you could draw too. Or could pistol whip you and then shoot youy. It's not about the superiority/inferiority of any weapon. 

The fact of the matter is that a 4' 5" 95 lb female can kill a 6' 5" 275 lb male attacking her much more easily and with less probablility of injury/death with a firearm than with any other weapon. Arguing that because some guy can jump you with a knife before you can use a gun, therefore a gun is a useless weapon, is plain silly.


----------



## K-man (Feb 18, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Being acceptable to me is highly relevant to what is acceptable to me. Period. I stated that *I* am glad I don't live in Australia, thus the only criteria I need apply are my own. Personal preference and all that. I did not attack Australia, state that they are evil or bad or wrong for having the laws they do, or otherwise offer an opinion on what's wrong with Australia. I stated that I would not want to live there, and stated my reasons why. My reasons are my reasons - that's as relevant as it gets.


 


> You'd be fond of it if you were in a wheelchair and an armed thug broke into your house, *threatening your life and demanding your prescription drugs*, I'd wager. It's all very well to look at the big picture, but when a criminal has a gun pointed at you, perspective changes rather quickly. I tend to doubt you'd shrug and say _"Well, go ahead and shoot me, it's best for society that I not be able to defend myself anyway."_


 
Another great reason for living in Australia. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 We have our National Health Scheme that provides low cost medication to all and very highly subsidised medication to those on low income. The medication the elderly are likely to be taking are antihypertensives, cholesterol lowering or perhaps some anti-inflamatory for the arthritis. There is simply no reason for criminals to break in to access these drugs. They could just go to the local doctor ang get their own. (Oh, that visit is subsidised as well with the NHS 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )

Now lets look at the "Big Picture". We'll assess relative risk. 

A couple of days ago an abalone diver was taken by a shark. Made headlines around the country. As one of our polititians famously said last week ... S#1t happens! I'll bet around Australia today people will be swimming in our shark infested waters. (Relative risk, about 1 death per year)

We have the world's most venomous snakes but less than 2 people die ech year from snake bite.

Crocodiles are a problem too. We probably lose 2 people a year to crocs. Still people will insist on living in those beautiful places up north.

Now bees are really dangerous. They hide in the grass and sting you when you're running around in bare feet. Kids still like to run around barefoot yet about 10 people will die from bee stings this year. (They're not even our bees. They're European Honey bees!)

We lose another 8 people a year in scuba diving accidents, and that includes Americans who die under strange circumstances.

More than 20 people die each year in Australia from horse riding related accidents. No-one has suggested yet we need to get rid of those and strangely we still like to ride.

About 60 people will die of stab wounds but it's a bit hard to get all those from everyone's kitchens. Then again a lot of the stabbings are gang member against gang member. (Yes, unfortunately we have picked up that quaint American custom of gangs too! Must have been "West Side Story". 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) But it is also illegal to carry most knives in public places so the risk is pretty minimal.

Somewhere in Australia today it is likely someone will die in a motor accident. Surprisingly perhaps, millions of us will still be out and about in our cars despite the chance we will die. (Relative risk, about 1,600 deaths per year)

Sadly, about 2000 Australians take their own lives each year.

Heart attacks take some one in Australia every 20 minutes. Now at my age that is far more scary than all the other risks combined but I still push myself at the gym and at training. (about 24,000 per year)

43,000 Australians died from cancer last year. That's the leading cause of deaths here, but we don't stress about it.

Now where were those shooting deaths? Strangely enough our homicide rate has halved since tougher gun laws were enacted in 1996. Can't understand why. :shrug: We probably have about 50 homecides per annum and I would imagine that more than half of those would be crim shooting crim. Hardly a huge risk for me. I'm more concerned about those pesky bees! 

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908906612.html



> You seem to be arguing that I'm not allowed to have an opinion on living in Australia because I don't live in Australia. Trust me, I'm allowed to entertain any opinion I like.


 
This is true, but sometimes our opinions are so irrational it is better not to voice them. 



> I agree that it is fear-based. And fear is an utterly reasonable response to facts. In the USA, many criminals who invade homes are armed. If I am not armed, I am at the mercy of the person or persons who break in; they can kill me or not kill me at their discretion. I do not want my living or dying to be at the discretion of a criminal armed with a handgun, drunk or high, scared out of his wits and trying to show his manhood off to his buddies. No, thanks. Fear? Yes, fear. And I'd be foolish if I thought that my fear was not reality-based. I have only to Google News for 'home invasion' to see the facts. Fear? Yes, fear. And that fear is entirely reasonable. Only a foolish person ignores reasonable fear.


 
The word that springs to mind is *Paranoia* .... _thought process heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion._ 


:asian:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 18, 2011)

K-man said:


> The word that springs to mind is *Paranoia* .... _thought process heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion._



I ask only a few questions, but you seem not to want to answer them.  Did the story I cited actually happen?  That is, did men break into the victim's house, and he shot them?   Was he arrested and charged with an offense?

If the answer is 'yes', then I rest my case.  Regardless of your many compelling reasons why Australia is both a lovely and yes, safe country, it prosecutes people who defend themselves with firearms if they don't have a permit, and they don't grant permits for self-defense as a reason.

Those are facts.  Care to dispute them?

I don't care how lovely Australia is - and it is - or how safe it is.  This happened to the man I cited the link to, and I would not want it to happen to me.  Ergo, I don't want to live in Australia.

Call that paranoia - but it's well-founded *SINCE IT HAPPENED.*

It's unfounded paranoia if I base my response on what might happen but hasn't.  This happened.  QED, it's real.  Go ahead, deny that it happened.


----------



## K-man (Feb 18, 2011)

Bill, if I lived in Afghanistan I would live in a walled compound with armed guards. If I was camping in Kenya I would take precautions to avoid trouble with wild animals, if I was camping in Northern Australia I wouldn't be on the ground near any of the waterways. If I'm sleeping in my bed in suburban Australia I don't need any of that. If in America you feel the need for locks on the doors, bars on the windows and an arsenal for protection that's fine. Just don't say we should be the same here because we don't need that s#1t.

If I were to say, "America's a great place but I wouldn't want to live there. They kill kids in the schools!"

That is just plain stupid. 



> Virginia Tech 32 killed, many more injured | Seung-Hui Cho
> 
> 
> 
> The Virginia Tech massacre was a school shooting comprising two separate attacks about two hours apart on April 16, 2007, on the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Virginia, United States. The perpetrator, Seung-Hui Cho, killed 32 people and wounded many more, before committing suicide, making it the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history.


Hey, but it happened .... right?

It's not common place but it happened once, so now we shouldn't send our kids to school unless they have guns to protect themselves? Yep! That makes about as much sense.


----------



## K-man (Feb 18, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I ask only a few questions, but you seem not to want to answer them. Did the story I cited actually happen? That is, did men break into the victim's house, and he shot them? Was he arrested and charged with an offense?
> 
> *Yes and Yes*
> 
> ...


 


> *Shooting injures two men in Perth*
> 
> Updated Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:28pm AEDT
> 
> ...


The fact that the article refers to "Bikies" raises my suspicions immediately. (In Australia 'bikies' are bad, bikers are 'good'.) And, why is the "good" guy in hospital under police guard?

 Wait for *all* the facts Bill. I'll bet there's more to this than meets the eye.    :asian:


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 18, 2011)

I understand Australia limits/controls access and ownership of swords in much the same way as firearms.  To me, that's the bigger bummer.  I just like swords, and they are part of my training, and I custom-build hilts and scabbards.  It's a fun hobby and makes for a better quality item than what is commonly available in terms of Chinese weaponry.

Are there limits on other martial arts weaponry?  Stuff like staffs, spears, guan-dao, etc.?

How about archery?  Is there any limits on ownership of archery gear and practice?  That's another one of my favorites...

just gathering my facts, back in the dubbya Bush years I was contemplating my options elsewhere...


----------



## K-man (Feb 18, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> I understand Australia limits/controls access and ownership of swords in much the same way as firearms. To me, that's the bigger bummer. I just like swords, and they are part of my training, and I custom-build hilts and scabbards. It's a fun hobby and makes for a better quality item than what is commonly available in terms of Chinese weaponry.
> 
> Are there limits on other martial arts weaponry? Stuff like staffs, spears, guan-dao, etc.?
> 
> ...


The same story as firearms. If you have a valid reason you can obtain a permit. So, in your case, you are a bone fide martial artist and you may have your swords. You can also get a permit if you are a genuine collector of swords. (May be different if you have a bad police record.)

Staffs, no problem. Spears, same category as swords. Nunchaka, Sai, Tonfa etc need the same permit.

Ordinary bows for sporting purpose are ok but I think you need to be a member of a registered club to have a crossbow.

In Victoria we have three categories.



> *Prohibited weapons*
> 
> Prohibited weapons are weapons that are considered inappropriate for general possession and use without a Governor in Council Exemption Order or a Chief Commissioner Approval.


 
This includes firearms and most of our MA weapons including guan-dao. 



> *Controlled Weapons*
> 
> Controlled weapons are weapons that can be used for legitimate purposes but require regulation because of the possible danger they pose to the community. This category of weapon includes knives that while not considered _prohibited_ weapons, still are a potential danger to the community.
> A person must not possess, carry or use a controlled weapon without lawful excuse. Lawful excuse includes:
> ...


 
That would include underwater spear guns.



> *Dangerous Articles*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
No-one with a legitimate reason misses out, and that includes hand guns. In that case it is severely restricted but if you are involved in security etc you can get a permit.

http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=25574

All seems reasonable to me. :asian:


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 19, 2011)

K-man said:


> Bill, if I lived in Afghanistan I would live in a walled compound with armed guards. If I was camping in Kenya I would take precautions to avoid trouble with wild animals, if I was camping in Northern Australia I wouldn't be on the ground near any of the waterways. If I'm sleeping in my bed in suburban Australia I don't need any of that. If in America you feel the need for locks on the doors, bars on the windows and an arsenal for protection that's fine. Just don't say we should be the same here because we don't need that s#1t.
> 
> If I were to say, "America's a great place but I wouldn't want to live there. They kill kids in the schools!"
> 
> ...




You are confusing the issue IMO.

Bill isn't saying that "I don't want to live in Australia because they have home invasions".

Hes saying "I don't want to live in Australia because they won't allow me the tools to defend myself if my home is invaded..." like the man we are discussing.


----------



## Whitebelt (Feb 19, 2011)

Here is a brief summary of why I am glad I don't live in Australia, I was hoping to just find one: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_Australian_spiders


----------



## K-man (Feb 19, 2011)

Whitebelt said:


> Here is a brief summary of why I am glad I don't live in Australia, I was hoping to just find one:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_Australian_spiders


 
Now *Arachnophobia *I can understand!


----------



## K-man (Feb 19, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> You are confusing the issue IMO.
> 
> Bill isn't saying that "I don't want to live in Australia because they have home invasions".
> 
> Hes saying "I don't want to live in Australia because they won't allow me the tools to defend myself if my home is invaded..." like the man we are discussing.


And I'm saying "I don't want to live in America because they won't allow my kids the tools to defend themselves if their school is invaded..." 

It is a totally irrational argument because BOTH of these scenarios are outside the law and that is for good reason.  

In America, *so far*, kids aren't allowed to take guns to school for self defence and we can't have guns at home for self defence.  They simply aren't necessary in each case.  

All I am saying is that Bill is citing one example of a rare occurance in Australia that may be only stating only half the story.   He justifies his position by stating that "It happened".  I'm saying that the school shooting happened.  So what?

I admit that one rare occurance shouldn't cloud your logic, Bill doesn't.   :asian:


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 19, 2011)

If you Aussies are happy with your laws thats fine. Nobody here is saying you have to change anything. Bill has stated previously that this is just his opinion.

I personally find it amusing how people get all defensive when THEIR country gets criticized but tell us Yanks that we are too sensitive when we get defensive when our nation is "bashed". Not necessarily you K-man, but it's a trend I have seen hereabouts.


----------



## K-man (Feb 19, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> If you Aussies are happy with your laws thats fine. Nobody here is saying you have to change anything. Bill has stated previously that this is just his opinion.
> 
> I personally find it amusing how people get all defensive when THEIR country gets criticized but tell us Yanks that we are too sensitive when we get defensive when our nation is "bashed". Not necessarily you K-man, but it's a trend I have seen hereabouts.


I agree with your sentiments. Feel free to "Bash" Australia. But make sure that the criticism is based on fact, not rumour or speculation. I'm happy to argue my position anytime.

If Bill had said, "I think Australians should be able to keep guns in the home for self defence", we can debate that.

If Bill had said, "I read about a home invasion in Perth where the guy pulled out an unregistered firearm and shot the intruders. What do you think about him being charged?" We could discuss that.

The problem with this OP was, a statement was made that was based on one case for which the facts have not even been established. This was then used to make a statement of opinion that inferred that Australia was an unsafe place to live because we are not permitted to own firearms for self defence and we are not allowed to kill someone who enters our home illegally. This is as irrational as my post above about the terrible school shooting in Virginia.

I'll make a statement of statistical fact. American's per capita are more than 10 times more likely to die from shooting incidents than Australians and we probably have about 2 million legal firearms in private hands in Australia. 


> In 2000, the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) conducted an International Crime Victims Survey that included comparative data on firearm ownership in Australia, the USA, Canada and the UK. From this survey the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) estimated that in 2000 about 10 per cent of Australian households owned a gun, reflecting a decline of 45 per cent in gun ownership since 1989. In Australia, the majority of households which owned a firearm did so for hunting or sport-related purposes. Details of the findings were published in the firearm ownership section of Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 2001.


 
Now my question. To get to the American level of gun ownership we would have to increase our ownership at least ten fold. Can anyone say with any conviction, that would make Australia a safer place? 

I am not commenting on America's gun laws. If American society is really half as bad as Bill has stated, then you probably need more than just guns. If he is right, and it is apparent from his post that he is very concerned for his safety even at home, then I genuinely feel sorry for all Americans because none of us should have to live with that level of fear. 

From an Australian perspective. Our people have voted with their feet. They walked into the police stations all over the country and handed in nearly half of the firearms that were in the community. They wouldn't have done that if they didn't feel secure.

Personally, I didn't have any concerns anywhere in America when I was there. I will admit we got a few strange looks in Harlem but that was as far as it went. I have walked through Cape Town alone and my wife and I went through the shanty town of Soweto. We immersed ourselves in the backstreets of the Moroccan cities without any hesitation. Recently I was in Taipei and I was wandering through little alleyways after midnight. Now, I am not saying there is no problem in America, but I am saying that I think the media has a lot to answer for because it is always doing a beatup and overstating the problem. 

As far as this thread goes, Mook, Chris and I are all saying the same thing. America is different to Australia. We don't want guns, we don't need guns and we love the way we live. Refresh you memory, have another look at Mook's post. :asian:


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 20, 2011)

K-man said:


> The same story as firearms. If you have a valid reason you can obtain a permit. So, in your case, you are a bone fide martial artist and you may have your swords. You can also get a permit if you are a genuine collector of swords. (May be different if you have a bad police record.)
> 
> Staffs, no problem. Spears, same category as swords. Nunchaka, Sai, Tonfa etc need the same permit.
> 
> ...



ah, all is not lost, thanks!

I've always wanted to make it down to Australia for a while, but haven't made it yet.  Looking forward to getting there.


----------



## wayneshin (Feb 20, 2011)

Just want to make the point that the guy in Perth was NOT charged because he defended himself. It is because it was with an UNREGISTERED weapon. It is no problem getting a weapon registered for a legitimate purpose eg Hunting. 

It seems that the US posters main argument is I need to have a gun in case I need to defend myself against a gun.  
I know it has already been raised and ignored so I will spell it out. The US has *TRIPLE* the murder rate of your typical westernised countries. (Australia, UK, Italy, France, Spain Canada etc). It is really simple. You have too many guns in your community.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 20, 2011)

wayneshin said:


> Just want to make the point that the guy in Perth was NOT charged because he defended himself. It is because it was with an UNREGISTERED weapon. It is no problem getting a weapon registered for a legitimate purpose eg Hunting.



But it is a problem getting a weapon for self-defense.



> It seems that the US posters main argument is I need to have a gun in case I need to defend myself against a gun.



The person who was arrested did.



> I know it has already been raised and ignored so I will spell it out. The US has *TRIPLE* the murder rate of your typical westernised countries. (Australia, UK, Italy, France, Spain Canada etc). It is really simple. You have too many guns in your community.



We also have the means to legally defend ourselves in most places in the USA using a firearm.

My point was and remains that I would not want to live in a place in which I was not permitted to own a gun for self-defense.


----------



## K-man (Feb 20, 2011)

wayneshin said:


> You have too many guns in your community.


 Mate, I might agree with you  ....  but .... Shhhh!  Talk like that gets you into a lot of trouble on this forum.


----------



## Rayban (Feb 20, 2011)

I'm just going to echo what has already been stated.

America and Australia are very different societies.  Trying to apply the "American" way of living here doesn't work and visa versa.

Gun crime in Australia is so small compared to other forms of violent crime that owning a gun to defend against someone else with a gun is just not needed.

All this talk I've seen about "would you like to be that one statistic?" is a bit strange.
Down here its like saying "I'm going to wear a hard hat whenever I'm outside because a meteor might fall on me".

My point is that preparing for remote possibilities is just silly.

Your attitude towards safety changes with the culture.  I am much more terrified of being knifed, hit by a car and struck by lightning than I am of being shot.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The person who was arrested did.


 
That's the thing, Bill, he didn't. All the article says is that he was assaulted with an unknown weapon:



> The 40-year-old resident of house, who was assaulted with an unknown object by one of the men, armed himself with a shotgun before shooting the two men.


 
I really get the feeling that if the intruders had guns, that would have been mentioned, but is sounds more like a blunt weapon attack to me. Not that that is less potentially fatal, but it does kinda remove the argument that you need a gun to protect yourself from other people with guns here. Okay?



Bill Mattocks said:


> My point was and remains that I would not want to live in a place in which I was not permitted to own a gun for self-defense.


 
Even if the place was one that didn't require a fun for self defence? Really? Even after all this?

Really, Bill, you're entitled to your opinion of our laws, no one is arguing that, our argument is that your take on it is irrational, as you are applying the environment of the US to the laws of Australia. It just doesn't make any sense, when looked at it rationally.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 21, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> That's the thing, Bill, he didn't. All the article says is that he was assaulted with an unknown weapon:



You want to match up weapon for weapon, skill for skill, eh?  So if an intruder breaks in and comes at you with a hammer, you arm yourself with a hammer.  If he has a knife, you get the kitchen knife and you go at it with moving music playing in the background.  How about if someone breaks into my home and assaults me with a weapon, they're likely to get shot.



> I really get the feeling that if the intruders had guns, that would have been mentioned, but is sounds more like a blunt weapon attack to me. Not that that is less potentially fatal, but it does kinda remove the argument that you need a gun to protect yourself from other people with guns here. Okay?



Not OK.  What about the elderly, the infirm, the injured?  Smaller people, women and younger people who don't have the size, skills, or matching weapons to go up against your attacker with an 'unknown weapon'?



> Even if the place was one that didn't require a fun for self defence? Really? Even after all this?
> 
> Really, Bill, you're entitled to your opinion of our laws, no one is arguing that, our argument is that your take on it is irrational, as you are applying the environment of the US to the laws of Australia. It just doesn't make any sense, when looked at it rationally.



I'm looking at it quite rationally.  The point has been made that such break-ins are rare; fine, they're rare.  They're rare here too; in all my years, my apartment was once burgled and my car was broken into once, but no one has ever kicked in my door and come at me with a weapon.  That does not mean I don't take precautions, and in my estimation, private gun ownership is an excellent precaution; one that is not permitted in Australia for purposes of self-defense.

I have asked - no one has answered - how you'd like being the the fellow who was listed in the article; would you be bludgeoned to a bloody mess content in the knowledge that your case was quite rare?

I own firearms for the same reason I train in martial arts; to prepare for things I hope I never need.  But if I need the skills; or the weapon; I want them to be available.

Australia is a great place that forbids private gun ownership for the stated purpose of self-defense.  Arguing that it's not needed in the face of a situation where it clearly was seems to me to be a losing proposition.  But my opinion remains the same; glad I don't live there.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 21, 2011)

Rayban said:


> My point is that preparing for remote possibilities is just silly.



So martial arts training is silly too?  I mean, the chances are remote that you'll ever need to defend yourself using your martial arts skills.



> Your attitude towards safety changes with the culture.  I am much more terrified of being knifed, hit by a car and struck by lightning than I am of being shot.



If someone attacked me with a knife, I'd hope I had a gun handy.  Under no circumstances am I going to intentionally defend myself against a knife attack with my empty hands or another knife.  I'm not a knife-fighter; if someone breaks into my house and attacks me with a knife, I'm going to do my best to shoot them.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 21, 2011)

Where the F is this "need a gun to defend against a gun" thing coming from? A gun is a tool to defend yourself...period. Not a weapon to specifically defend yourself against another gun. If my daughter had to defend herself against a 6' 250 lb guy with a knife, her best chances are with a gun. Are we seriously saying that "well they only had blunt weapons so you wouldn't need a gun?"

Is the concept of deadly force really that different there from what it is here?


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You want to match up weapon for weapon, skill for skill, eh? So if an intruder breaks in and comes at you with a hammer, you arm yourself with a hammer. If he has a knife, you get the kitchen knife and you go at it with moving music playing in the background. How about if someone breaks into my home and assaults me with a weapon, they're likely to get shot.


 
Come on Bill, that's not what you said.



wayneshin said:


> It seems that the US posters main argument is I need to have a gun in case I need to defend myself against a gun.


 


Bill Mattocks said:


> The person who was arrested did.


 
No, he didn't need to defend himself against a gun. And you may note that I still said that other weapons were not potentially less lethal there....



Bill Mattocks said:


> Not OK. What about the elderly, the infirm, the injured? Smaller people, women and younger people who don't have the size, skills, or matching weapons to go up against your attacker with an 'unknown weapon'?


 
Okay, fun challenge for you. Australian news, assaults with a gun over the last year against elderly, infirm, or injured. Can you find one? How about the year before that? Honestly, in all assaults against such persons, I can't remember a report about a gun being involved. And are you really suggesting that a frail elderly woman, with no training, is better off with a gun? Gotta say, that doesn't seem to be a good solution to me. The elderly, infirm, disabled etc will need training in how to use the weapon still, won't they? I don't know of many grandmothers that would want to be anywhere near a gun, let alone have one or subject themselves to training with one. Really, Bill, most people look at me funny here when I talk about my time on a pistol range! Especially when I say I enjoyed it!



Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm looking at it quite rationally. The point has been made that such break-ins are rare; fine, they're rare. They're rare here too; in all my years, my apartment was once burgled and my car was broken into once, but no one has ever kicked in my door and come at me with a weapon. That does not mean I don't take precautions, and in my estimation, private gun ownership is an excellent precaution; one that is not permitted in Australia for purposes of self-defense.


 
No, Bill, you're not looking at it rationally. You're looking at it with an American mentality and trying to attach it to an Australian situation, that is not rational. It's as rational as a man telling a woman that he understands the pain of childbirth because he once skinned his knee, the sitautions are completely seperate, with very little to connect them.

We don't allow guns for self defence because that would cause the bad guys to get more guns in order to still have the upper hand, and that is something we'd rather not encourage. If there is not a reasonable, rational case for doing so, why would we? Do you start to see the issues of gun control as we see it now? It actually stops the criminals from arming themselves with firearms!



Bill Mattocks said:


> I have asked - no one has answered - how you'd like being the the fellow who was listed in the article; would you be bludgeoned to a bloody mess content in the knowledge that your case was quite rare?


 
You do know why no-one answered you, though, right? The question is loaded from the start, designed to paint anyone who would still argue against guns as crazy, or cowardly in not wanting to fight back. Is it really meant to be taken as a serious question in that light?



Bill Mattocks said:


> I own firearms for the same reason I train in martial arts; to prepare for things I hope I never need. But if I need the skills; or the weapon; I want them to be available.
> 
> Australia is a great place that forbids private gun ownership for the stated purpose of self-defense. Arguing that it's not needed in the face of a situation where it clearly was seems to me to be a losing proposition. But my opinion remains the same; glad I don't live there.


 
That's the thing, though Bill, was it clearly needed? I wasn't there, you weren't there, there have been scant details in the reports, none of which even lead me to believe that the assault was meant to be fatal. Your entire premise is based on a partial report of a story in a country with a vastly different criminal culture than your own, and you're arguing the same as an Eskimo claiming he'd never move to Barbados as they don't let him protect himself againt Polar Bears there (and before you say that there's people everywhere, my point is that the dangers in one place are just not the same as those found in another... Barbados has dangers all it's own that the Eskimo should be better prepared for other than Polar Bears).



Bill Mattocks said:


> So martial arts training is silly too? I mean, the chances are remote that you'll ever need to defend yourself using your martial arts skills.


 
Oh, dear lords, Bill, really? If that is your real concern, honestly, get yourself to an RBSD course, fast. I've said many times here that martial arts are simply not geared up for modern violence, the modern legal system, or any other aspect to make them self defence as is, a fair bit of retro-fitting needs to happen for that first. So there has to be other reasons to train, yeah? I mean, if all you wanted was to learn to handle yourself, once you could land a solid hit, that's it. Leave the school. But there's a lot more to it than that, to restrict your take on martial arts to "if you aren't going to get into a fight, then martial arts training is silly and paranoid" really shows a desperation in your argument. You know what martial arts can offer much better than that. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> If someone attacked me with a knife, I'd hope I had a gun handy. Under no circumstances am I going to intentionally defend myself against a knife attack with my empty hands or another knife. I'm not a knife-fighter; if someone breaks into my house and attacks me with a knife, I'm going to do my best to shoot them.


 
If someone attacked you with a knife, odds are you wouldn't have a chance to get to your gun, and if you had it with you, you may be so caught up trying to get to it that you miss the opportunity to escape or defend, and get killed because of it. If we're going to look at this realistically, that is. Honestly, what I'd want would be a barrier, then distance. The highest firepower weapon is not always the best, but human psychology screams in a high stress high adrenaline survival situation like that to go for the most powerful thing we can get, which would be the gun, whether it is the best option or not. And close quarters against a knife, it really aint. This argument doesn't stand up, I'm afraid.



Archangel M said:


> Where the F is this "need a gun to defend against a gun" thing coming from? Are we seriously saying that "well they only had blunt weapons so you wouldn't need a gun?"


 
From Bill's post, see above.



Archangel M said:


> Is the concept of deadly force really that different there from what it is here?


 
Again, there isn't actually an indication that there was deadly force or even intent there. There may have been, those details are not present in the story, though. And yes, deadly force can be met with deadly force, deadly intent can be met with deadly force, it comes down to what is considered "reasonable" force, and within those criteria, it would fit. But, one more time here, that is NOT WHAT THE GUY WAS CHARGED WITH! So it's really moot to the discussion based on the article, or Bill's objection to living here (based on the fact that, although he can apply and get firearms if he lived here, he couldn't get one for the express purpose of defence in his home).

Really, deadly force is also beside the point. The majority of armed assaults are with bladed weapons, knives particularly. They are plenty deadly themselves. But that doesn't mean that people should all get guns, as I said, a gun would have little effect on the persons survivability against most knife assaults.

So maybe, just maybe, can we come to the agreement that Australia may just know what is best for our personal defence needs? And, although it may shock or dismay some here, that is not a gun.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 21, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> No, he didn't need to defend himself against a gun. And you may note that I still said that other weapons were not potentially less lethal there....



You have an odd notion of what other people 'need' to defend themselves.  It appears to be based on a romanticized notion that bad people have restraint, self-control, and no real desire to hurt anyone, not to mention that if your home is invaded and you are attacked with violence, you won't be seriously hurt.



> And are you really suggesting that a frail elderly woman, with no training, is better off with a gun?



Did I say 'no training'?  I would certainly hope anyone who chose to own a gun for self-defense would take the time to learn to use it.  In fact, I think I've urged that in every gun thread I've been part of on MT.

However, worse comes to worse, yes, a frail elderly woman with no training stands a far better chance of defending herself with a gun than she would with any weapon or empty-hand self-defense system that required knowledge and skill to use properly.  A gun can be very much a point and pull response.



> Gotta say, that doesn't seem to be a good solution to me. The elderly, infirm, disabled etc will need training in how to use the weapon still, won't they? I don't know of many grandmothers that would want to be anywhere near a gun, let alone have one or subject themselves to training with one. Really, Bill, most people look at me funny here when I talk about my time on a pistol range! Especially when I say I enjoyed it!



If you're saying that, you are essentially saying you'd rather see them dead at the hands of an intruder than able to defend themselves with a firearm.



> No, Bill, you're not looking at it rationally. You're looking at it with an American mentality and trying to attach it to an Australian situation, that is not rational. It's as rational as a man telling a woman that he understands the pain of childbirth because he once skinned his knee, the sitautions are completely seperate, with very little to connect them.



I'm looking at it rationally as I am what I am - an American.  I can't have an Australian mentality on it, I'm not an Australian.  However, the situation I'm applying it to is universal; a man's home is broken into and he is attacked by an intruder.  That's not really different from place to place that I'm aware of.



> We don't allow guns for self defence because that would cause the bad guys to get more guns in order to still have the upper hand, and that is something we'd rather not encourage. If there is not a reasonable, rational case for doing so, why would we? Do you start to see the issues of gun control as we see it now? It actually stops the criminals from arming themselves with firearms!



Reasonable criminals.  Hmmm, that seems quite odd to me.  Perhaps if you placed your valuables outside on the ground, it would stop them kicking in doors or mugging people as well, eh?



> You do know why no-one answered you, though, right? The question is loaded from the start, designed to paint anyone who would still argue against guns as crazy, or cowardly in not wanting to fight back. Is it really meant to be taken as a serious question in that light?



I'd like to hear an answer.  I keep reading that the fellow in question didn't need a gun to defend himself.  So I ask you to put yourself in his place for a moment, and your door has just been kicked in, and here comes the stranger with the 'unknown weapon' and oh dear he's striking you with it.  If you feel that the victim in this case needed no gun, then I must ask you what you'd do if it were you.  Accept your fate with meek tranquility, because using a gun to defend your life is wrong?  Or fight back with any means at your disposal, including a gun if you found one in your hands?



> That's the thing, though Bill, was it clearly needed? I wasn't there, you weren't there, there have been scant details in the reports, none of which even lead me to believe that the assault was meant to be fatal.



If someone is beating me over the head with an 'unknown weapon', I am going to reasonably assume that he means to end my life.  In any case, his intent may have little to do with what actually happens; he may mean to whack me one upside my noggin for posting inflammatory things on MT, but it turns out I have a very breakable skull.  Or he may be unable to control himself once he experiences the joy of smacking me around a bit.  In any case, the choice - to kill me or merely seriously injure me - is not mine at that point, it's his.  That is an intolerable situation.  I'm quite rightly going to assume he means to kill me and react accordingly.

To presume that he a) merely means to injure me seriously but not kill me, and b) that he is capable of precisely administering the blows to do just that and not kill me seems very illogical to me.  Yes, he might just mean to injure me.  I'm not going to ask him his intent, nor wait to see what happens.  He made his choices when he kicked in my door and attacked me.  I am going to make my choices based on what he's done, not what he might or might not intend.



> Your entire premise is based on a partial report of a story in a country with a vastly different criminal culture than your own, and you're arguing the same as an Eskimo claiming he'd never move to Barbados as they don't let him protect himself againt Polar Bears there (and before you say that there's people everywhere, my point is that the dangers in one place are just not the same as those found in another... Barbados has dangers all it's own that the Eskimo should be better prepared for other than Polar Bears).



I am basing my premise upon an actual incident.  It's not made-up, nor is it theoretical.



> Oh, dear lords, Bill, really? If that is your real concern, honestly, get yourself to an RBSD course, fast. I've said many times here that martial arts are simply not geared up for modern violence, the modern legal system, or any other aspect to make them self defence as is, a fair bit of retro-fitting needs to happen for that first. So there has to be other reasons to train, yeah? I mean, if all you wanted was to learn to handle yourself, once you could land a solid hit, that's it. Leave the school. But there's a lot more to it than that, to restrict your take on martial arts to "if you aren't going to get into a fight, then martial arts training is silly and paranoid" really shows a desperation in your argument. You know what martial arts can offer much better than that.



Martial arts are not merely for self-defense, but that is their primary function.  It's certainly one of the biggest reasons I train.



> If someone attacked you with a knife, odds are you wouldn't have a chance to get to your gun, and if you had it with you, you may be so caught up trying to get to it that you miss the opportunity to escape or defend, and get killed because of it.



That's an assumption, and I feel a false one.  However, let's go with it.  One thing we can determine factually is this.  *I cannot defend myself with a gun I do not own*.  If I own a gun, I have a chance, however small, of defending my life with it.  A small chance beats no chance.  Simple logic.



> If we're going to look at this realistically, that is. Honestly, what I'd want would be a barrier, then distance.



Seems quite logical to me.  And that precludes the use of a firearm how?



> The highest firepower weapon is not always the best, but human psychology screams in a high stress high adrenaline survival situation like that to go for the most powerful thing we can get, which would be the gun, whether it is the best option or not. And close quarters against a knife, it really aint. This argument doesn't stand up, I'm afraid.



Google News.



&#8206;Would you care to repeat your assertion that homeowners don't have time to use their guns anyway?


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You have an odd notion of what other people 'need' to defend themselves. It appears to be based on a romanticized notion that bad people have restraint, self-control, and no real desire to hurt anyone, not to mention that if your home is invaded and you are attacked with violence, you won't be seriously hurt.


 
Bill, you stated that the person in the original story you linked needed to defend himself against a gun. I've already quoted you saying that. There is no indication that the intruders had guns. So his "need to defend himself against a gun" is non-existant in this story. Believe me, I am under no misapprehensions as you indicate here, just pointing out that even this detail of the story doesn't support what you're saying, or your call for us to arm ourselves in such a manner. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Did I say 'no training'? I would certainly hope anyone who chose to own a gun for self-defense would take the time to learn to use it. In fact, I think I've urged that in every gun thread I've been part of on MT.


 
Ah, my mistake. I just went back and double-checked, you mentioned untrained in martial arts. But the reality is that most of those you mention, with an Australian mentality, would prefer to not have one. Other than farmers and hunters, I haven't come across anyone who wants guns (I don't really hang in criminal circles....), and certainly don't think of them for self defence. That may surprise you as well, but here we do not view guns as tools of self defence, they are weapons of the police, the military, and criminals (although the latter in the minority, and as mentioned, they tend to aim them at each other, rather than the populace).



Bill Mattocks said:


> However, worse comes to worse, yes, a frail elderly woman with no training stands a far better chance of defending herself with a gun than she would with any weapon or empty-hand self-defense system that required knowledge and skill to use properly. A gun can be very much a point and pull response.


 
Hmm, with my, admittedly limited, time on pistol ranges, knowing the feel of a firearm, the recoil, the issues with aiming them, I'm still going to doubt that. In fact, I think that there would be far more accidental shootings in those circumstances than actual effective self defence.



Bill Mattocks said:


> If you're saying that, you are essentially saying you'd rather see them dead at the hands of an intruder than able to defend themselves with a firearm.


 
I'm going to shock you again here, but our intruders rarely kill. Steal, yes. But kill? This is not America. Yes, it does happen, but in most instances I can remember it is due to criminal involvement (on the part of the victim), or one or two instances of wealthy people being targeted.... and you'd think they could afford proper security!

So your alarmist skewing of my post really is again a moot point, you know. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm looking at it rationally as I am what I am - an American. I can't have an Australian mentality on it, I'm not an Australian. However, the situation I'm applying it to is universal; a man's home is broken into and he is attacked by an intruder. That's not really different from place to place that I'm aware of.


 
The relative risk and cultural approach to criminal behaviour does change from place to place, Bill, and I feel that you know that. The types of crimes are different in one area to another, the levels criminals go to is different, the responces from the public are different, the punishments and laws are different. Really, you know that.

And looking at the Australian situation without taking into account the Australian approach, viewpoint, understanding, mentality, and so on is not rational. It's demonstative of an inability to look beyond your own understanding. Without being able to look at things from an Australian point of view, you really aren't in a position to start commenting the way you are. Broad brush-strokes of "home invaders are universal" doesn't do you any credit, as there are too many differences even within the same culture, let alone another one. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Reasonable criminals. Hmmm, that seems quite odd to me. Perhaps if you placed your valuables outside on the ground, it would stop them kicking in doors or mugging people as well, eh?


 
Hey, it works. Have you thought that the individual arms race that seems to happen in the US simply makes the criminals their upgrade their weaponry to handle the firearms the homeowners their targeting now have? So the homeowners now upgrade what they have? And so on... and so on.... and so on..... We've seen that on a large scale, might as well accept that it didn't work there (how close did the world come to being the victim of the nuclear arms race?), and it isn't working for you on a small scale either.

There are reasons the US has such a high fatality rate when it comes to firearms.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I'd like to hear an answer. I keep reading that the fellow in question didn't need a gun to defend himself. So I ask you to put yourself in his place for a moment, and your door has just been kicked in, and here comes the stranger with the 'unknown weapon' and oh dear he's striking you with it. If you feel that the victim in this case needed no gun, then I must ask you what you'd do if it were you. Accept your fate with meek tranquility, because using a gun to defend your life is wrong? Or fight back with any means at your disposal, including a gun if you found one in your hands?


 
Really, Bill, that is far too vague. The simple answer is that I'd fight back, most typically by closing and clinching if I couldn't see what was going on, and "feeling" my way from there... but there are again far too many variables. Unless you were in the room, you don't know if he needed a gun, or if you would have needed one either.

Your question is loaded, you are giving two options, use a gun, or meekly let them bash your head in. The world just isn't that black and white, and again, you know it. The real answer is "neither".



Bill Mattocks said:


> If someone is beating me over the head with an 'unknown weapon', I am going to reasonably assume that he means to end my life. In any case, his intent may have little to do with what actually happens; he may mean to whack me one upside my noggin for posting inflammatory things on MT, but it turns out I have a very breakable skull. Or he may be unable to control himself once he experiences the joy of smacking me around a bit. In any case, the choice - to kill me or merely seriously injure me - is not mine at that point, it's his. That is an intolerable situation. I'm quite rightly going to assume he means to kill me and react accordingly.


 
Again, the article only says "assaulted with an unknown weapon", you're leaping to a necessarily lethal intent and action. And if it's a lethal intent and action, then you know that we would say that lethal responce is warranted. But we do not have those details, the reason for the invasion is not disclosed, there is nothing to suggest that it was intent for anything other than scare or steal. To be "assaulted with an unknown weapon" could be a rod inserted somewhere unpleasant, you know.... or anything else. 

The situation is not clearly stated.

And, as you well know, reasonable force is not decided by those involved at the time, it's decided by the court who hears the case. So what you think here is largely irrelevant as well (in terms of it not mattering whether they are intending to kill you or not, you'll react as if they are), as if the opposition lawyers can demonstrate that the intent was not lethal injury, or even anything close, and you pull a gun, things won't turn out well for you.

Each case will be tried on it's merits.



Bill Mattocks said:


> To presume that he a) merely means to injure me seriously but not kill me, and b) that he is capable of precisely administering the blows to do just that and not kill me seems very illogical to me. Yes, he might just mean to injure me. I'm not going to ask him his intent, nor wait to see what happens. He made his choices when he kicked in my door and attacked me. I am going to make my choices based on what he's done, not what he might or might not intend.


 
Again, you're introducing aspects that are simply not present. Who says there was a sudden kicking in of a door? Who says that it's not a silent picking of a lock? Who says the "assault with an unknown weapon" isn't just a rope used to try to tie him up and gag him if he woke up? Really, Bill, the article gives none of the details you seem to be basing your entire argument on.

As for logical or not, that's again not the issue. You're attributing conscious decision making where it doesn't exist. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> I am basing my premise upon an actual incident. It's not made-up, nor is it theoretical.


 
No, Bill, you're basing your premise on a single, isolated, rare instance, where you are adding in details that don't exist in the story itself to support your position, and ignoring the realities of the situation. It is entirely theoretical, as the situation you are describing does not exist in any of the stories that have been brought up.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Martial arts are not merely for self-defense, but that is their primary function. It's certainly one of the biggest reasons I train.


 
I have huge respect for Karate, and Isshin Ryu, but you missed the point of it then. There are much better, faster, more effective, and far more reliable ways of attaining that goal.



Bill Mattocks said:


> That's an assumption, and I feel a false one. However, let's go with it. One thing we can determine factually is this. *I cannot defend myself with a gun I do not own*. If I own a gun, I have a chance, however small, of defending my life with it. A small chance beats no chance. Simple logic.


 
Actually, that's not so much an assumption, it's based on the dominant methods of attack and assault with a bladed weapon, and understanding what is needed for surviving such a situation, as well as understanding what is involved in retrieving a firearm when required, such as the distance and time required. A barrier is better, as is distance. I'd be more confident of going unarmed against a knife (against a common knife assault) than trying to get to a firearm in such circumstances. Note, this is not a case of someone pulling a knife from a distance and trying to threaten you, I'm talking about actual knife assaults here. Close quarters against a gun, knife wins. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Seems quite logical to me. And that precludes the use of a firearm how?


 
It doesn't. But it doesn't necessitate one either, Bill. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Google News.


 
Er, right? Not sure what you're meaning here, to be honest. 

&#8206;





Bill Mattocks said:


> Would you care to repeat your assertion that homeowners don't have time to use their guns anyway?


 
Okay, let's take it back a bit. The "time to draw" thing was commenting on knife assaults, as you initially stated that a gun was needed to protect your home against an invader with a gun, when it was pointed out that a gun was not present, you brought up other weapons, so I took that as a springboard to discuss the use of firearms against one of the scariest and most dangerous weapons on that list, taking it away from being about homeowners, and into the more general "self defence" arena.

And it really depends on where the gun is, how the knife is present, where everyone is, and so on. Vague hypotheticals with no context aren't possible to answer, and once again, you know this.

Let's go back to the beginning, though.

You say you are glad you don't live here as you wouldn't be allowed to have a gun for the express purpose of self protection. Not that you couldn't have a gun, as you can, but that you couldn't claim that as your reason when applying for a licence.

It has then been pointed out time and time again that there is no real need for such measures in Australia.

You have ignored this by claiming that a single, isolated incident, with no supporting details for your case, proves that things happen here. Here's the thing, though, once is an anomaly. Twice is a co-incidence. You'll need three times for a pattern to begin and for you to have a case. Preferably close together geographically, chronologically, etc.

You have since taken this in every direction you can other than seeing that, if you were living in Australia, the very reasons you want the gun don't exist. Making the need, or reasons given for possessing such a weapon utterly irrelevant.

Is that about it?


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 21, 2011)

> Really, deadly force is also beside the point. The majority of armed assaults are with bladed weapons, knives particularly. They are plenty deadly themselves. But that doesn't mean that people should all get guns, as I said, a gun would have little effect on the persons survivability against most knife assaults.
> 
> So maybe, just maybe, can we come to the agreement that Australia may just know what is best for our personal defence needs? And, although it may shock or dismay some here, that is not a gun.


 
You are confusing "initiative" with weapon.

You could kill me with a soda bottle if I had a gun and you had the initiative. If you have a knife in your belt and I have a gun and the intent to shoot you before you are aware of my intent you are going down. People misunderstand what the Tueller drill means all the time. The fact of the matter is that training or not..disability or not...physical size notwithstanding..the gun is far more effective in equalizing physical/weapon discrepancies than any other weapon in history.

[yt]J6gcFPjdwiI[/yt]


----------



## yorkshirelad (Feb 21, 2011)

Australians don't need a gun, they've got a Donk.

Hope you Ozzies don't mind the Crocodile Dundee reference.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 21, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Bill, you stated that the person in the original story you linked needed to defend himself against a gun. I've already quoted you saying that. There is no indication that the intruders had guns. So his "need to defend himself against a gun" is non-existant in this story. Believe me, I am under no misapprehensions as you indicate here, just pointing out that even this detail of the story doesn't support what you're saying, or your call for us to arm ourselves in such a manner.



I think we are disagreeing about what represents the need for a gun for self-defense.  You seem to believe that a gun is only necessary for self-defense if a gun is known to be in the hands of the criminal.  I reject that philosophy.  There is no 'fighting fair' in self-defense, and a person defending their home and especially their person whilst inside their home is under no obligation to meet force with like force.  If a person kicks in my door and comes at me with a pocketknife and I have a gun, I'm not going to put down my gun and go scraping about for a pocketknife of my own.  So yes, in my worldview, a gun is absolutely essential for home protection and self-defense therein.  I base my statement that the victim in this case needed a gun on the fact that he had one and used it.



> Ah, my mistake. I just went back and double-checked, you mentioned untrained in martial arts. But the reality is that most of those you mention, with an Australian mentality, would prefer to not have one. Other than farmers and hunters, I haven't come across anyone who wants guns (I don't really hang in criminal circles....), and certainly don't think of them for self defence. That may surprise you as well, but here we do not view guns as tools of self defence, they are weapons of the police, the military, and criminals (although the latter in the minority, and as mentioned, they tend to aim them at each other, rather than the populace).



I do not doubt you that Australians do not view firearms as self-defense weapons.  I do.  Hence my opinion that I would not want to live in a nation in which firearms were not allowed to be owned for the stated purpose of self-defense.

I am not calling Australians wrong, nor suggesting that Australia needs to change to suit me.  I am stating that *I* meaning me, personally, would not want to live there and this is why.



> Hmm, with my, admittedly limited, time on pistol ranges, knowing the feel of a firearm, the recoil, the issues with aiming them, I'm still going to doubt that. In fact, I think that there would be far more accidental shootings in those circumstances than actual effective self defence.



With your admittedly limited experience with firearms, I'm going to suggest that I know a bit more about the subject of firearm effectiveness than you do.

However, this is a subject upon which I've commented from time to time regarding gun control in the USA.  Many of the people who are for gun control don't know the first thing about them.  I've heard defense attorneys ask police officers on the stand why they didn't shoot the gun from their client's hand instead of shooting him in the chest.  When people are ignorant about a subject, they probably don't have reasonable ideas about what should be done with regard to that subject.



> I'm going to shock you again here, but our intruders rarely kill. Steal, yes. But kill? This is not America. Yes, it does happen, but in most instances I can remember it is due to criminal involvement (on the part of the victim), or one or two instances of wealthy people being targeted.... and you'd think they could afford proper security!



First, clearly our man here was attacked.  So what rarely happens doesn't mean much to me, this is what happened.  Second, if a person breaks into my home and attacks me, I'm going to assume he means to kill me.  Assuming he does NOT mean to kill me strikes me as insanely poor decision-making skills.  Third, it's a shame that wealthy people can afford security systems, but poor people are denied the one equalizing weapon that could save their lives - a firearm.  I can't comment on violent crime in Australia, but I know for a fact that in the USA, violent crime disproportionately affects the very poor.



> So your alarmist skewing of my post really is again a moot point, you know.



I offer my opinion.  It hasn't changed.  I backed my opinion with the facts as I see them.



> The relative risk and cultural approach to criminal behaviour does change from place to place, Bill, and I feel that you know that. The types of crimes are different in one area to another, the levels criminals go to is different, the responces from the public are different, the punishments and laws are different. Really, you know that.



I know that when a person breaks down my door and attacks me, I'm in justifiable fear of my life.  Statistics mean little when you are confronted with a violent criminal.  Taking steps to address the real threat is much more sensible than taking steps to address a threat based on the statistics.  If the latter were smart, it would be a good idea to play golf in the rain; after all, the statistics say that relatively few people are struck by lightning.  A smart person might consider their own well-being rather than the relative chances that they'd be injured.



> And looking at the Australian situation without taking into account the Australian approach, viewpoint, understanding, mentality, and so on is not rational. It's demonstative of an inability to look beyond your own understanding. Without being able to look at things from an Australian point of view, you really aren't in a position to start commenting the way you are. Broad brush-strokes of "home invaders are universal" doesn't do you any credit, as there are too many differences even within the same culture, let alone another one.



A threat to my life is a threat to my life. It does not matter if I am in Australia, the USA, or on the moon.  Yes, it is indeed universal at the point where it stops being theoretical and actually happens.  This actually happened.  That's as universal as it gets.



> Hey, it works. Have you thought that the individual arms race that seems to happen in the US simply makes the criminals their upgrade their weaponry to handle the firearms the homeowners their targeting now have? So the homeowners now upgrade what they have? And so on... and so on.... and so on..... We've seen that on a large scale, might as well accept that it didn't work there (how close did the world come to being the victim of the nuclear arms race?), and it isn't working for you on a small scale either.



So criminals now carry machine guns routinely in the USA, since many American law-abiding citizens are armed?  Uh, no.



> There are reasons the US has such a high fatality rate when it comes to firearms.



Yes, there are.  We have a lot of guns.  And a history of being a gun-owning populace.  And criminals who don't have much respect for human life.

And disarming the civilian populace is going to stop that somehow?

But I digress.  I have a firearm in the USA precisely because if someone breaks into my house and attacks me, I want the means to defend myself available, which to me means a firearm.  I'm not at all interested in lowering the number of guns available in the USA, nor in playing a theoretical game where I disarm, therefore the guy who kicks my door in is magically not armed now either.  And when it comes to my door being kicked in, well as I said, it doesn't much matter where I'm living.  The language of criminal violence is universal.



> Really, Bill, that is far too vague. The simple answer is that I'd fight back, most typically by closing and clinching if I couldn't see what was going on, and "feeling" my way from there... but there are again far too many variables. Unless you were in the room, you don't know if he needed a gun, or if you would have needed one either.



So you'd fight back, would you?  And if he overmatched you?  If you were small, or confined to a wheelchair, or very old?  I guess you'd just die, then, eh?

I'd prefer not to die, and I'm not interested in matching my martial arts skills against a man who has just broken into my home.  I am interested in survival and nothing else.



> Your question is loaded, you are giving two options, use a gun, or meekly let them bash your head in. The world just isn't that black and white, and again, you know it. The real answer is "neither".



Let's hope your skills are sufficient to protect you, then.  I prefer to have a gun in my hand in such situations.



> Again, the article only says "assaulted with an unknown weapon", you're leaping to a necessarily lethal intent and action.



Yes, I am.  That's a primary tenet of self-defense.  If a person breaks into my home and assaults me, they are presumed to be intending great bodily harm or death.  It is not my problem to prove that they are there to kill me.  It is correct to presume that to be true.



> And if it's a lethal intent and action, then you know that we would say that lethal responce is warranted. But we do not have those details, the reason for the invasion is not disclosed, there is nothing to suggest that it was intent for anything other than scare or steal. To be "assaulted with an unknown weapon" could be a rod inserted somewhere unpleasant, you know.... or anything else.



Doesn't matter.



> The situation is not clearly stated.



Clearly enough.



> And, as you well know, reasonable force is not decided by those involved at the time, it's decided by the court who hears the case.



So true.  And if it turns out that I have used deadly force incorrectly, I will stand trial for it.  I will, however, be alive.  If I assume that I do not have the right to defend myself with deadly force and am killed, then show me the court that can return my life to me.



> So what you think here is largely irrelevant as well (in terms of it not mattering whether they are intending to kill you or not, you'll react as if they are), as if the opposition lawyers can demonstrate that the intent was not lethal injury, or even anything close, and you pull a gun, things won't turn out well for you.



What I think is *all* that is relevant to deciding where I want to live, which is my entire premise and opinion.



> Again, you're introducing aspects that are simply not present. Who says there was a sudden kicking in of a door? Who says that it's not a silent picking of a lock? Who says the "assault with an unknown weapon" isn't just a rope used to try to tie him up and gag him if he woke up? Really, Bill, the article gives none of the details you seem to be basing your entire argument on.



Let's revisit:



> Police will allege that two men, aged 30 and 31, broke into the house in  Nurstead Avenue in Bassendean about 11pm on Monday night.
> 
> The  40-year-old resident of house, who was assaulted with an unknown object  by one of the men, armed himself with a shotgun before shooting the two  men.



Two men broke in.  How did they break in?  I admit, I don't know.  But they proceeded to 'assault' the victim with an 'uknown object'.  I will admit that I am presuming the assault was not something like tickling him with a feather duster.  I am assuming if they had 'tied him with a rope', the report would say 'tied up' instead of 'assault' and 'rope' instead of 'unknown object'.  But I think those are pretty reasonable assumptions.  In any case, if I am asleep in my home (which I would be at 2300) and two men came into my house, I would not wait to be assaulted by a feather duster, a rubber chicken, or a tire iron before defending myself.  And I think to wait to be assaulted so one could see how 'deadly' the assault was likely to be would be incredibly foolish.



> As for logical or not, that's again not the issue. You're attributing conscious decision making where it doesn't exist.



I do not need to know what decision the criminals have come to.  All I need to know is that they have broken into my house and are assaulting me.  No other information needed to defend myself with deadly force.



> No, Bill, you're basing your premise on a single, isolated, rare instance, where you are adding in details that don't exist in the story itself to support your position, and ignoring the realities of the situation. It is entirely theoretical, as the situation you are describing does not exist in any of the stories that have been brought up.



The situation occurred.  Period.



> I have huge respect for Karate, and Isshin Ryu, but you missed the point of it then. There are much better, faster, more effective, and far more reliable ways of attaining that goal.



In addition to not knowing much about guns, then, you also don't know much about me.  If I say that I study martial arts primarily for self-defense, then that is what I mean.  You're not going to get very far alleging that I don't mean that at all.  I think I know my own mind, thanks.

Are there better self-defense systems?  I don't know, but I'm sure it's possible.  However, this is the one I choose to study, and I do so primarily to learn empty-handed self-defense.  The best self-defense system I own is between my ears.  Next on the list is the time I spend on the firing range.



> Actually, that's not so much an assumption, it's based on the dominant methods of attack and assault with a bladed weapon, and understanding what is needed for surviving such a situation, as well as understanding what is involved in retrieving a firearm when required, such as the distance and time required. A barrier is better, as is distance. I'd be more confident of going unarmed against a knife (against a common knife assault) than trying to get to a firearm in such circumstances. Note, this is not a case of someone pulling a knife from a distance and trying to threaten you, I'm talking about actual knife assaults here. Close quarters against a gun, knife wins.



From the man who admittedly doesn't know much about guns.



> You say you are glad you don't live here as you wouldn't be allowed to have a gun for the express purpose of self protection. Not that you couldn't have a gun, as you can, but that you couldn't claim that as your reason when applying for a licence.



I am also not in the habit of lying to get what I want.  I don't hunt any more, and I tend to doubt that I'd be granted a hunting permit for a 1911 Colt A1 pistol, eh?



> You have ignored this by claiming that a single, isolated incident, with no supporting details for your case, proves that things happen here. Here's the thing, though, once is an anomaly. Twice is a co-incidence. You'll need three times for a pattern to begin and for you to have a case. Preferably close together geographically, chronologically, etc.



The news article was all I needed to confirm the truth; a person may not legally own a firearm for the stated purpose of self-defense in Australia.  I don't know how many situations you require before the law becomes more clear, but to me, that is sufficient for me to understand the law.  And I find it unacceptable;  I would not live there on that basis and no other.  How many cases do I need before I am allowed to draw that opinion, please?



> You have since taken this in every direction you can other than seeing that, if you were living in Australia, the very reasons you want the gun don't exist. Making the need, or reasons given for possessing such a weapon utterly irrelevant.



I have done nothing but answer questions by people who seem to think that I am against the law in Australia, that I think the USA is better than Australia, that Australians are wrong to not want to own guns for self-defense, and everything else other than what I originally stated, which was simple - since Australia doesn't allow a person to own a gun legally for purpose of self-defense, I would not want to live there.  Instead of a statement of opinion, many have chosen to see this as a personal attack on Australia.  It isn't.  Go Australia!  But I won't live there.



> Is that about it?



Up to youse guys.  I'm just responding to statements that show people aren't really developing those critical reading skills.


----------



## wayneshin (Feb 21, 2011)

So guess we are telling you that an armed intruder in Australia is not likely to be armed with a gun. Maybe a knife or some sort of club. So now we change the law so the house owner can keep a gun for self defence and all of a sudden that armed instruder now also has a gun "For self defence" and the outcome. 

Our murder rate triples................


----------



## K-man (Feb 21, 2011)

Bill  ... is there ANY other country you would live apart from the US?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





   I haven't found any other First world country that would accomodate your needs.  Switzerland in the one that springs to mind as they have compulsory ownership of assault weapons and you can have handguns. Their laws are lax and they do have a very high murder rate, 2nd only to the US.  You'd probably be ok there as most people even speak English.


----------



## Rayban (Feb 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> So martial arts training is silly too?  I  mean, the chances are remote that you'll ever need to defend yourself  using your martial arts skills.


 
I train martial arts to better myself and learn as much about myself and  the art as I can.  I also learn self defense to defend myself.  The  only part of martial arts I use to defend myself on the modern day  street is to be aware of my surroundings.

Self defense and Martial arts are not the same thing when you are  talking about the times we live in today.  IMO if someone uses a martial  arts move (that was created a very long time ago for defense) against a  street predator today armed with a knife, they are going to lose. End  of story.



Bill Mattocks said:


> If someone attacked me with a knife, I'd hope I had a gun handy.  Under  no circumstances am I going to intentionally defend myself against a  knife attack with my empty hands or another knife.  I'm not a  knife-fighter; if someone breaks into my house and attacks me with a  knife, I'm going to do my best to shoot them.



One can react much much faster without a more powerful weapon to rebut  with.  It reminds me of those old loony tunes episodes when Bugs and  Yosemite Sam appear and on and off screen with bigger and bigger cannons  until one fires.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I own firearms for the same reason I train in martial arts; to prepare  for things I hope I never need.  But if I need the skills; or the  weapon; I want them to be available.



Surely you must train martial arts for reasons other than defense.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Australia is a great place that forbids private gun ownership for the  stated purpose of self-defense.  Arguing that it's not needed in the  face of a situation where it clearly was seems to me to be a losing  proposition.  But my opinion remains the same; glad I don't live  there.



Again in an Australian context, preparing for a home invasion by owning a gun is not needed.  Almost every home invasion that happens here is by unarmed opportunists.  But even the ones that are armed are likely to run if caught.  That leave very few home invasions that end violently.  They are so rare that they make national news when they do happen.  You are seriously more likely to be struck by lighting then be injured ina  home invasion.



Bill Mattocks said:


> You have an odd notion of what other people  'need' to defend themselves.  It appears to be based on a romanticized  notion that bad people have restraint, self-control, and no real desire  to hurt anyone, not to mention that if your home is invaded and you are  attacked with violence, you won't be seriously hurt.



Most people don't want to harm anyone else.  People burgle to rob.  I'm sure an intruder would much prefer taking what they want without incident.  If the world was full of "people out to get you" we would have become extinct a very long time ago.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm looking at it rationally as I am what I am - an American.  I can't  have an Australian mentality on it, I'm not an Australian.  However, the  situation I'm applying it to is universal; a man's home is broken into  and he is attacked by an intruder.  That's not really different from  place to place that I'm aware of.



But you are trying to apply your American values on an Australian society and yes it is different from place to place.  the goal will be the same but the intruder is culturally different.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I'd like to hear an answer.  I keep reading that the fellow in question  didn't need a gun to defend himself.  So I ask you to put yourself in  his place for a moment, and your door has just been kicked in, and here  comes the stranger with the 'unknown weapon' and oh dear he's striking  you with it.  If you feel that the victim in this case needed no gun,  then I must ask you what you'd do if it were you.  Accept your fate with  meek tranquility, because using a gun to defend your life is wrong?  Or  fight back with any means at your disposal, including a gun if you  found one in your hands?



How do you know he "needed" a gun?  This is not a black and white story.  What this sentence suggests to me is:  I am weak an useless without a gun so I'll just roll over and die.  Come on.  Really?  Your only options are shoot them or give up?  Even the meekest individual will defend themselves if their life is being threatened.

Does a soldier stop fighting because he's run out of ammo?



Bill Mattocks said:


> I do not doubt you that Australians do not view firearms as self-defense  weapons.  I do.  Hence my opinion that I would not want to live in a  nation in which firearms were not allowed to be owned for the stated  purpose of self-defense.
> 
> I am not calling Australians wrong, nor suggesting that Australia needs  to change to suit me.  I am stating that *I* meaning me, personally,  would not want to live there and this is why.



But you're saying that you don't want to live here because you can't legally own a gun for self defense even though the need for a gun is not there.



Bill Mattocks said:


> First, clearly our man here was attacked.  So what rarely happens  doesn't mean much to me, this is what happened.  Second, if a person  breaks into my home and attacks me, I'm going to assume he means to kill  me.  Assuming he does NOT mean to kill me strikes me as insanely poor  decision-making skills.  Third, it's a shame that wealthy people can  afford security systems, but poor people are denied the one equalizing  weapon that could save their lives - a firearm.  I can't comment on  violent crime in Australia, but I know for a fact that in the USA,  violent crime disproportionately affects the very poor.



I'm not disputing the types of crime in America.  This thread is about crime in Australia and why you don't want to live here because of it.

So given an unbiased choice between a country where you "need" a gun and can get a gun to defend yourself because the crime rate is so high and a country where you don't need and can't get a gun because the crime rate is lower, you would still choose the former?



Bill Mattocks said:


> So criminals now carry machine guns routinely in the USA, since many  American law-abiding citizens are armed?  Uh, no.
> 
> Yes, there are.  We have a lot of guns.  And a history of being a  gun-owning populace.  And criminals who don't have much respect for  human life.
> 
> ...



Again, I'm not suggesting the Australian way of gun control will work in America.

You are not your weapon.  You will not shrivel up and die without it.  Especially in a place where it is not needed.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I was stationed for awhile at HMAS Stirling, and spent some time in Perth, back in the 1980's.  Amazing city, wonderful people.  No disrespect intended.  But I am glad I do not live there.
> 
> ...
> 
> I would not want to live in the country that had a, b, or c as offenses.



This is really a strange thread.  

Bill, you opened this thread with statements that you would not want to live in Australia because of the gun laws.  OK, you have a right to your opinion, and nobody is trying to force you to move to Australia, so you've got nothing to worry about.  

The thing is, by posting this thread, you are welcoming opinions.  The Aussies here on the board have chimed in and expressed their own feelings on the matter, as an Australian issue.  But you want to convince them you are the one who is right about it?  You've got no argument.  It's not your home, it's not your issue.  Feel how you want about guns and gun laws, but their laws have no effect on you so it doesn't matter to you, and it seems the Aussies are comfortable with it.

Apparently the Aussies see things differently than their American cousins.  Why is that a problem for you?  So make your own decision about not living there and know that for you, it is the right decision.  And don't worry about it.


----------



## K-man (Feb 21, 2011)

Bill, you wouldn't even like Canada. It was difficult to find a home invasion there but I managed eventually.



> WINNIPEG -- Two Windsor Park sisters are wondering where city police were when they waited nearly three hours for them to arrive in Saturday's wee hours while an intruder banged on their house's windows, trying to get in.
> http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/canada/2010/07/21/14778856.html


 
He didn't manage to get in but I'll bet the sisters were wishing you were there with the Shoty.

Canada's laws wouldn't suit you either. You have to be licenced to have a firearm and most have to be registered. You have to store them unloaded and in a safe location. 

Here's a scenario:


> You hear a noise downstairs an sneak down to investigate. Bloody hell, there's an intruder. Have to get to the safe and get my gun. It will probably be difficult to unlock the safe, insert the bolt and load your weapon while you fend off your armed assailant. Thank God for martial art training, eh? Now you have your act together you can shoot the bastard. Question is now, "Is that self defence or premeditated murder?" Sad that the 18 year old punk you shot wasn't actually armed at all wasn't it. Oh! Sorry, I forgot ... he had it coming. Shouldn't have been there in the first place. Turns out the poor bugger was homeless and was looking for food. He didn't even realise you were at home until you sprung him. Oh, and I forgot to mention, it was you sister's lad that was causing a bit of grief at home and he picked your place because he knew that you had plenty of food. In the dark, you didn't recognise him and at that stage he was just trying to get away without being recognised. You shot him in the back as he was trying to leave.


How do you feel? I'll bet you tell me you haven't got a sister.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 21, 2011)

Come along, don't upbrade Bill for his opinions so hard.   

I do agree wholeheartedly that it is difficult for any of us to not express our views coloured by the cultural filters we look through.

But it is only by expressing and discussing those opinions that we learn anything about each other.  I for one have learned a good deal about Australian crime and attitudes to firearms and, for that,  I am glad that this thread was started.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 21, 2011)

If someone breaks into my house, and I'm home, I'll find out if they're armed.........*after* I've shot them. It's the only strategic answer that makes any kind of sense.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 21, 2011)

K-man said:


> Canada's laws wouldn't suit you either. You have to be licenced to have a firearm and most have to be registered. You have to store them unloaded and in a safe location.


 
My rifle and shotgun are locked away as per the law, but if anyone breaks into my house I have various swords, staffs and baseball bats to make short work of anyone.


----------



## K-man (Feb 21, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> My rifle and shotgun are locked away as per the law, but if anyone breaks into my house I have various swords, staffs and baseball bats to make short work of anyone.


Exactly, so you like most Canadians, Australians, British, Germans, French_, _Italians, New Zealanders, Japanese etc., don't feel you need a firearm for self defence. As a result of this, I assume, you would have no qualms about living in any other civilised country in the world, especially because, in most if not all of those countries you can still have legal firearms and wherever else you might go, the chances of being shot are substatially reduced. :asian:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2011)

Rayban said:


> I train martial arts to better myself and learn as much about myself and  the art as I can.  I also learn self defense to defend myself.  The  only part of martial arts I use to defend myself on the modern day  street is to be aware of my surroundings.



I also find that the stances I've been taught can be helpful when walking on icy ground or uneven terrain.



> Self defense and Martial arts are not the same thing when you are  talking about the times we live in today.  IMO if someone uses a martial  arts move (that was created a very long time ago for defense) against a  street predator today armed with a knife, they are going to lose. End  of story.



I disagree.  They may lose, they may win, but they will have a better chance than someone with no martial arts skills whatsoever.  And part of that martial arts training is gaining an understanding of when it is a very good idea to run away as fast as possible.



> One can react much much faster without a more powerful weapon to rebut  with.  It reminds me of those old loony tunes episodes when Bugs and  Yosemite Sam appear and on and off screen with bigger and bigger cannons  until one fires.



All I can say is that I absolutely disagree.  And if you had any experience with firearms, you'd know that.



> Surely you must train martial arts for reasons other than defense.



Again, critical reading skills.  I said one of the primary reasons I train in martial arts is to learn self-defense.  Of course I train for other reasons as well.



> Again in an Australian context, preparing for a home invasion by owning a gun is not needed.  Almost every home invasion that happens here is by unarmed opportunists.  But even the ones that are armed are likely to run if caught.  That leave very few home invasions that end violently.  They are so rare that they make national news when they do happen.  You are seriously more likely to be struck by lighting then be injured ina  home invasion.



And again; a) I am not interested in the Australian context.  I am interested in MY context.  b) Regardless of the odds of being struck my lightning, it happens.  Flaunting the odds of being struck by lightning by golfing in a thunderstorm is considered rather stupid.  Not being armed despite the low risk of actually having to defend oneself with that gun is also somewhat stupid.  Fortune (risk or odds) favor the prepared.



> Most people don't want to harm anyone else.  People burgle to rob.  I'm sure an intruder would much prefer taking what they want without incident.  If the world was full of "people out to get you" we would have become extinct a very long time ago.



You assign a rationality to criminals that does not exist.  Most people do not want to rob, but some do.  Most robbers don't want to harm, but some do.  Most robbers who harm don't want to kill, but some do.  I don't want to be killed.  Ergo, a gun is a good self-defense item to have handy in the home.



> But you are trying to apply your American values on an Australian society and yes it is different from place to place.  the goal will be the same but the intruder is culturally different.



No sir, it is NOT different from place to place *AT THE POINT OF THE SPEAR*.  Despite the low odds of being burgled in Australia compared to the USA, it happens.  Despite the low odds of being assaulted in one's home by a burglar in Australia compared to the USA, it happens (as it did here).  And when THAT happens, it is *exactly the same* no matter where you are.  Period, end of statement.



> How do you know he "needed" a gun?  This is not a black and white story.  What this sentence suggests to me is:  I am weak an useless without a gun so I'll just roll over and die.  Come on.  Really?  Your only options are shoot them or give up?  Even the meekest individual will defend themselves if their life is being threatened.



I will use whatever means I have to defend myself, from my empty hands to a kitchen knife to a ball peen hammer to a gun.  If I have a choice, I'll choose a gun.  Every single time.  I 'need' a gun because it is the best choice when a person's home is invaded.



> Does a soldier stop fighting because he's run out of ammo?



No, nor does he go into battle without a firearm because most people in his country are not killers, or because his leaders have a pathological aversion to firearms.



> But you're saying that you don't want to live here because you can't legally own a gun for self defense even though the need for a gun is not there.



Yes, except I say that *I* need a gun for self-defense.  What you think I need isn't germane, it doesn't matter.  I determine what *I* need, not you.



> I'm not disputing the types of crime in America.  This thread is about crime in Australia and why you don't want to live here because of it.



No sir, it is not.  And that is the problem.  I did not start a thread about crime in Australia and why I won't live in Australia because of it.  I started a thread about *A* crime in Australia and how it illustrated the point that personal ownership of guns for the purpose of self-defense is illegal in Australia, and how I won't live in Australia BECAUSE OF THAT.  Again, critical reading skills.  You continue to raise objections to arguments I have not made.



> So given an unbiased choice between a country where you "need" a gun and can get a gun to defend yourself because the crime rate is so high and a country where you don't need and can't get a gun because the crime rate is lower, you would still choose the former?



Yes.  Without question.  A lower crime rate is a wonderful thing.  Until you are one of the improbable but still potential victims.  A one-in-a-million chance of being struck by lightning sounds lovely, so let's all walk in the rain with sticks of metal.  Most of us won't be hit; but the fellow who is hit won't like it much.  Perhaps precautions would have been better than playing the odds that they would not be hit.  A low crime rate means FEWER people meet a violent end at the hands of criminals, but it STILL HAPPENS.  And I want the right to own a gun to defend myself from those criminals despite the low rate of occurrence. 



> Again, I'm not suggesting the Australian way of gun control will work in America.
> 
> You are not your weapon.  You will not shrivel up and die without it.  Especially in a place where it is not needed.



But I can choose where I live, and I will not live in Australia.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> This is really a strange thread.
> 
> Bill, you opened this thread with statements that you would not want to live in Australia because of the gun laws.  OK, you have a right to your opinion, and nobody is trying to force you to move to Australia, so you've got nothing to worry about.
> 
> ...



Quite right; except for one thing.  All of my responses have been just that - responses.  I respond to the questions I am asked and the arguments made. I made no statements trashing Australia or Australians or even Australian laws.  When pressed for a reason why I think I 'need' a gun for self-defense, I have given my reasons, and clearly stated that they are through the American culture I was raised in, but also rooted in logic, which I've demonstrated to devastating effect (hehehe).  I absolutely agree with the rest.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> My rifle and shotgun are locked away as per the law, but if anyone breaks into my house I have various swords, staffs and baseball bats to make short work of anyone.



I wish you the best of luck.  You might also recall that in some very civilized countries, the sword is next on the list of prescribed items.  Perhaps you can still protect yourself with the baseball bat.

But I do wonder how well it shoots down hallways when someone breaks in armed with a firearm and starts shooting.  The Polish Army once mounted a horseback-and-saber attack against a foe armed with guns, as I recall.  Didn't' really end all that well for the Poles.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2011)

K-man said:


> Bill, you wouldn't even like Canada. It was difficult to find a home invasion there but I managed eventually.
> 
> He didn't manage to get in but I'll bet the sisters were wishing you were there with the Shoty.
> 
> ...



I have three sisters.  Not sure what that means.

But regarding Canada...I love it.  I've worked in Montreal and Vancouver, and I currently live NORTH of parts of Canada; I visit fairly often (by driving south).  There are various times in my youth when I felt disappointed by the USA and considered what it would be like to live in Canada.  I like a lot about Canada and how they order their society and I especially like the beer and poutine.

But I will not register my guns, nor leave them unloaded or locked up.  An unloaded gun is a stick.  I have enough sticks.

So, Canada is out as a choice for a permanent domicile for me.

I think that the right to private firearms ownership and to defend oneself armed with a firearm is a defining and cornerstone right, one of the true necessities of a permanently free society.  I'd own a gun if for no other reason than to exercise that right; even if it was nothing but a wall-hanger that exemplified that the government does not control the people, it's the other way around.


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 22, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Quite right; except for one thing.  All of my responses have been just that - responses.  I respond to the questions I am asked and the arguments made. I made no statements trashing Australia or Australians or even Australian laws.  When pressed for a reason why I think I 'need' a gun for self-defense, I have given my reasons, and clearly stated that they are through the American culture I was raised in, but also rooted in logic, which I've demonstrated to devastating effect (hehehe).  I absolutely agree with the rest.



Except that you started the thread.

You recently started another thread, something like, "If you aren't Catholic, then shut up".  I get that.  I understand that it's irritating when outsiders pass judgement on this kind of thing and they often don't understand what's underneath it.  But isn't this a double standard you are trying to justify?  I'm not interested in stifling discussion or debate, but I could see this topic going in the same direction as your Catholic thread:  If you aren't an Aussie, then Shut Up!


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Feb 22, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I have three sisters. Not sure what that means.
> 
> But regarding Canada...I love it. I've worked in Montreal and Vancouver, and I currently live NORTH of parts of Canada; I visit fairly often (by driving south). There are various times in my youth when I felt disappointed by the USA and considered what it would be like to live in Canada. I like a lot about Canada and how they order their society and I especially like the beer and poutine.
> 
> ...


 
So would you consider your need to own a firearm to be more to do with your sense of identity, than with any specific security issue? I'd consider that understandable myself.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> Except that you started the thread.
> 
> You recently started another thread, something like, "If you aren't Catholic, then shut up".  I get that.  I understand that it's irritating when outsiders pass judgement on this kind of thing and they often don't understand what's underneath it.  But isn't this a double standard you are trying to justify?  I'm not interested in stifling discussion or debate, but I could see this topic going in the same direction as your Catholic thread:  If you aren't an Aussie, then Shut Up!



Fair enough, and if my intent had been to criticize Australia or Australian gun policy, I'd agree with you.  However, I have not done so.  It would be more along the lines of someone saying _"I could never be a Catholic and this is why,"_ and then having that interpreted as an attack on Catholicism.

Our statements in this thread have apparently been interesting to many, and for that I am quite glad.  But it has been a bit frustrating to me as I've been lambasted for making accusations I haven't made, then told I'm wrong about my own personal opinion.

I think much revolves around the different interpretations of words such as 'need'.  You say I don't 'need' a gun to defend myself.  I say I do.  But my 'need' is not the same word as your 'need', I suspect.  You'd put your use of the word down to the odds of being faced with an armed intruder, whilst I put mine down to the choices I'd want available to me when faced with that intruder, no matter what the odds against it happening.

I realize that much of my opinion is formed by my American culture, but of course that's part of who I am.  When forming my own opinions about living in a place, it's what I have to rely upon.  I can't become Australian or think with an Australian sensibility.  It would be as if I said _"If I were born communist, I'd think communism was nifty and keen."_  Of course I would, but I wasn't born that way, so I don't think much of it.  I'm not interested in objective analysis of crime and punishment in Australia for the purposes of my theoretically wanting to live there, only in how I feel about the thought of so doing.  You seem to be responding, again and again, _"no, you mustn't think that way."_  I must think the way I think when forming my own opinions.  How could I think any other way than the way I think?

My feelings on the matter are expressed clearly by American courts, which have held again and again that a reasonable and prudent man would feel their life in danger if their home were broken into and invaded by another.  Although some states have a 'duty to retreat' and some have a 'Castle Doctrine' before resorting to deadly force, none of them feel that a person would be unreasonable to think themselves in mortal danger and fear severe injury or death in such situations.  And yes, I realize that's not the case in Australia, but to me the logic is incredibly basic.  If a man breaks into my home and advances towards me, I have to -  I must - assume the worst.  To do elsewise is to put my life in their hands, waiting to see what they might have in mind for me and leaving myself to their tender mercies.  Waiting to see if they produce a gun, and if so, if they intend to use it, and if so, if they intend to shoot with intent to kill me is not something I'm willing to risk; and no American court would ask it of me either.  This is what informs my thinking, and of course, what drives my statement about wanting to live in Australia.

So in the end, to me, *it doesn't matter* what the crime rate is in Australia, or what the likelihood is of actually being severely injured or killed during a robbery.  That's not what concerns me; I only concern myself with what happens in those (rare) instances, such as the one I linked to.  It clearly happens despite the low odds.  When it happens, I intend to be prepared to defend myself and to assume the worst.  I can see that Australian law does not permit that.  *Fair enough!*  But that also means I won't live there.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2011)

Shotgun Buddha said:


> So would you consider your need to own a firearm to be more to do with your sense of identity, than with any specific security issue? I'd consider that understandable myself.



No, not really.

For myself, there are three distinct drivers behind my 'need' to own firearms.

The *first* is literal self-defense.  One can (and should) take into account crime rates and the likelihood of being severely injured or killed when choosing where to live.  I live in a safe area of the Detroit metro area now, primarily on account of my wife (and my mother-in-law, who lived with us and passed away two weeks ago).

I recognize, of course, that the odds of my home being invaded are lower here than they would be if I lived in the city limits of Detroit.

But that is not the point.  One buys car insurance even though one is not likely to be in an accident.  One buys health insurance even though one is in good health.  One buys life insurance even though one does not expect to die soon.  It's not about the odds - it's about what happens when the worst occurs.

Every martial artist who studies for self-defense should recognize this.  I don't study martial arts so that I can go into dangerous bars and parts of town where I'm more likely to be assaulted.  I study martial arts so that I can increase my chances of survival if I am attacked doing what I do now.  The chances of that are almost incredibly low; I don't hang out in bars, I don't go to shady areas of town, I don't live in a bad neighborhood.  But being prepared gives me a chance I would not have if I were not prepared.  Just as having a gun and knowing how and when to use it also gives me a chance I would not otherwise have.

There are no guarantees.  I could end up not able to defend myself with a gun against an intruder to my home.  Perhaps I could not get to it, perhaps I'd miss my target, perhaps it would be taken from me and I'd be killed with it, perhaps I'd be shot before I could retrieve it.  However, perhaps I could defend myself with it, and a simple search of Google News shows one news item after another of people successfully defending their homes and lives against intruders with their firearms.  It increases my chances of survival; it doesn't guarantee anything.

The *second* is the demonstration of my freedom.  Freedoms are not freedoms until they are demonstrated.  One may 'theoretically' have the freedom to do this or that, but one may be afraid to test that theory for fear it doesn't really stand up.  When I own a gun, and it is legally unregistered, unlicensed, and no one can stop me from owning it, the right to have and bear arms is real, it exists.  I need to own guns to demonstrate that freedom to myself.  It's simple but visceral.  I am exercising my rights.  I need to vote for the same reason; to prove that I still live in a free society, where I can vote my conscience without fear of repercussion, where the losers leave office when they lose, turning over the reigns of power in accordance with the demands of the electorate.

The *third* is that I like guns.  I like to own them.  I like other things too, like old cameras and old wristwatches and old cars and interesting mechanical devices and tube stereo equipment and so on.  I like to live in a place where I can legally indulge myself in that hobby.  I can buy what I like, and do what I want with it with regard to fixing it up, taking it out shooting, buying ammunition for it, displaying it, and if need be, defending myself with it.

However, going to the absolute crust of the biscuit; if I lived in a society which forbade private gun ownership for self-defense purposes, and that society had a very low crime rate and the criminals not often armed with guns themselves, I'd be safer than if I lived in the society I live in now; but that's not the point.  The point is that at the point where confronted with an armed criminal intent on doing me harm (which happens in areas where the odds are higher or lower, regardless), I want to have a gun in my hands to defend myself with.  Since I am allowed to pick and choose where I wish to live, I choose not to live in a society which denies me the right to own a gun for the stated purpose of self-defense.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 22, 2011)

A slight detour from the Australia issue. I don't "aim" these quotes at our friends Down Under by any means, they are just some of my faves when I mull over the issue of American gun ownership.



> &#8220;You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.&#8221; &#8211; Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, 1941
> 
> &#8220;Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA &#8212; ordinary citizens don&#8217;t need guns, as their having guns doesn&#8217;t serve the state.&#8221; &#8211; Heinrich Himmler
> 
> "The media insist that crime is the major concern of the American public today. In this connection they generally push the point that a disarmed society would be a crime-free society. They will not accept the truth that if you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem." -Col. J Cooper


----------



## Flying Crane (Feb 22, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Fair enough, and if my intent had been to criticize Australia or Australian gun policy, I'd agree with you.  However, I have not done so.



c'mon Bill, by opening this thread you were passing judgement on Australian policy.  I can't see how one could see it otherwise.  Maybe you don't believe that was your intention, but the way you opened the thread comes off as you judging them.

You are frequently one of the more intelligent and thoughtful posters on this forum.  Even when I disagree with you, I am usually able to recognize my disagreement without the taint of feeling like you are a jerk or something.  You are articulate and you express your positions well, and you are not stupid, which I cannot say for everyone.  But in this case I think you are simply wrong.  Not for your position on guns and gun policy, or that issue as an issue influencing where you would choose to live.  But for this notion that you've got a better and somehow more correct way of seeing it than the Aussies do, in their own country.  I mean, it's not like they are supporting the right of the males to initiate honor killings, or something.  It's a gun ownership issue.  It works for them, sounds like they are comfortable with it, it's their issue, nothing an outsider can really push on that.  Disagree with it all you want, but beyond that, what's the point?



> Our statements in this thread have apparently been interesting to many, and for that I am quite glad.



yes, there's something to be learned from the discussion, I won't take that away from it.  But there's also something to be said for recognizing that it just isn't your issue, and no matter what you may think about it, your opinion is irrelevant as far as the issue is concerned.



> You say I don't 'need' a gun to defend myself.  I say I do.  But my 'need' is not the same word as your 'need', I suspect.  You'd put your use of the word down to the odds of being faced with an armed intruder, whilst I put mine down to the choices I'd want available to me when faced with that intruder, no matter what the odds against it happening.



are you saying "you" meaning me specifically, or are you using that word in a general sense?  Be careful about putting words in others' mouths.  You don't know what I personally may say about it.


----------



## Rayban (Feb 22, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bill Mattocks*
> 
> 
> ...



I echo every point here.  You took the words right out of my fingers 

This thread is starting to get a bit tetchy I think.  Opinions clashing is what a debate is.  One must be flexible with their stances and opinions and respect those of others.  By debating them we learn.  We learn more about those we are debating with and about our own opinions.

I don't think being completely digital in any case that involves human nature is a wise thing.  There is no such thing as a crime free society and to rule a black and white judgment in an area that is full of shades of grey is to me strange.



Bill Mattocks said:


> And again; a) I am not interested in the Australian context.  I am interested in MY context.  b) Regardless of the odds of being struck my lightning, it happens.  Flaunting the odds of being struck by lightning by golfing in a thunderstorm is considered rather stupid.  Not being armed despite the low risk of actually having to defend oneself with that gun is also somewhat stupid.  Fortune (risk or odds) favor the prepared.



I'd like to think that someone who isn't armed all the time for fear of being attacked isn't a stupid person.  And yes, this is all an Australian context.  While your reasons for not wanting to live here are fine.  They are your own.  I have reasons why I wouldn't want to live places too.  But you have passed a judgment on our society and compared it to yours.  Fine.  This is where the debate starts.  Why we have gun laws and why we as a people don't feel a need for guns.  Out of all of our laws it is the only one that has almost total backing from every political party and the people.



Bill Mattocks said:


> You assign a rationality to criminals that does not exist.  Most people do not want to rob, but some do.  Most robbers don't want to harm, but some do.  Most robbers who harm don't want to kill, but some do.  I don't want to be killed.  Ergo, a gun is a good self-defense item to have handy in the home.



I'm not disputing how effective a gun is as an attacking weapon or as self defense.  As I said before.  You can't apply digital "yes or no" thinking to a grey area.



Bill Mattocks said:


> No sir, it is NOT different from place to place <b>AT THE POINT OF THE SPEAR</b>.  Despite the low odds of being burgled in Australia compared to the USA, it happens.  Despite the low odds of being assaulted in one's home by a burglar in Australia compared to the USA, it happens (as it did here).  And when THAT happens, it is <b>exactly the same</b> no matter where you are.  Period, end of statement.



I try not to generalise as best I can but I'm still not convinced every single criminal has the exact same goal of hurting people.  



Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, except I say that *I* need a gun for self-defense.  What you think I need isn't germane, it doesn't matter.  I determine what *I* need, not you.



I'm not disputing your "need" (want is probably a better word here) for a gun.  I'm telling you what the "need" is HERE in Australia.



Bill Mattocks said:


> No sir, it is not.  And that is the problem.  I did not start a thread about crime in Australia and why I won't live in Australia because of it.  I started a thread about *A* crime in Australia and how it illustrated the point that personal ownership of guns for the purpose of self-defense is illegal in Australia, and how I won't live in Australia BECAUSE OF THAT.  Again, critical reading skills.  You continue to raise objections to arguments I have not made.



This is what happens with loaded comments.  Chances are that if I stated 
"I don't want to live in America because I think the death penalty is insane"
It would kick off a debate on corporal punishment.  



Bill Mattocks said:


> But I can choose where I live, and I will not live in Australia.



All of your responses can be boiled down to this one liner here.  That's your opinion and no one is questioning it.  But starting a thread like this you would have had to have known a discussion about gun laws in Australia and debating their relevance was going to ensue.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2011)

Rayban said:


> I try not to generalise as best I can but I'm still not convinced every single criminal has the exact same goal of hurting people.



I'm sure they don't.  The point is not what their goal is. The point is that I can't know what their goal is until they've attempted it, which I'm not going to do.  It is both reasonable and prudent to make an assumption which starts from known facts, which is that they have broken in to my house and I am under assault.



> All of your responses can be boiled down to this one liner here.  That's your opinion and no one is questioning it.  But starting a thread like this you would have had to have known a discussion about gun laws in Australia and debating their relevance was going to ensue.



Let's revisit my initial post:



> I was stationed for awhile at HMAS Stirling, and spent some time in  Perth, back in the 1980's.  Amazing city, wonderful people.  No  disrespect intended.  But I am glad I do not live there.



So I started out by describing that I have been to Australia and I think it's wonderful.  Provocative?



> http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/west...-1226007160365
> 
> Quote:
> *A HOME owner who shot two intruders at his house in Bassendean   on Monday night has been charged with possession of an unlicensed   firearm and possession of unlicensed ammunition. 				*
> ...



Please point out to me the part where I said that Australia's laws were bad, attacked Australia, or otherwise suggested that the world should change to meet my requirements.

It was pointed out to me that the victim wasn't arrested for using the shotgun, but rather for not registering it.  I accept that as a valid point, but it doesn't change my opinion about living there, either.

Since then, I have pretty much spent my time refuting arguments about things I did not say, nor did I insinuate.  The one criticism I have leveled is that a lot of people in this thread seem to lack critical reading skills.  That is, if they read in my statement an attack on Australia, that's on them; I never attacked Australia.


----------



## Rayban (Feb 22, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Please point out to me the part where I said that Australia's laws were bad, attacked Australia, or otherwise suggested that the world should change to meet my requirements.
> 
> It was pointed out to me that the victim wasn't arrested for using the shotgun, but rather for not registering it.  I accept that as a valid point, but it doesn't change my opinion about living there, either.
> 
> Since then, I have pretty much spent my time refuting arguments about things I did not say, nor did I insinuate.  The one criticism I have leveled is that a lot of people in this thread seem to lack critical reading skills.  That is, if they read in my statement an attack on Australia, that's on them; I never attacked Australia.



Speaking of critical reading, I have not stated anywhere or insinuated that "you are attacking Australian values and laws".  My point is very simple.

*If you live here there is no need to own a firearm.  And if you believe you "need", not want one to live here, you are misguided.  If you want one because it is a hobby, you get it registered and obey the storage and use laws.*

From this point (that is my opinion) it appears I have upset you.  I am not trying to infringe on your freedom to own and use guns in your own country.  I am telling you how it is here.

You started a thread with an obviously loaded title and expressed an opinion.  Then won't accept the opinions of those who actually live here.

I have tried not to offend and I respect your opinion and your choices.  They are yours to make.  So please don't get upset when others voice theirs.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 22, 2011)

Rayban said:


> I have tried not to offend and I respect your opinion and your choices.  They are yours to make.  So please don't get upset when others voice theirs.



I'm not upset.  It takes considerably more than that.  I speak directly, and sometimes people mistake that for anger.


----------



## K-man (Feb 22, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Please point out to me the part where I said that Australia's laws were bad, attacked Australia, or otherwise suggested that the world should change to meet my requirements.
> 
> It was pointed out to me that the victim wasn't arrested for using the shotgun, but rather for not registering it. I accept that as a valid point, but it doesn't change my opinion about living there, either.
> 
> Since then, I have pretty much spent my time refuting arguments about things I did not say, nor did I insinuate. The one criticism I have leveled is that a lot of people in this thread seem to lack critical reading skills. That is, if they read in my statement an attack on Australia, that's on them; I never attacked Australia.


Bill, you say that you have responded to all questions but ignored mine. I asked you what other country would you live in with your criteria. Total silence. I asked you if guns in schools would stop school shooting. Total silence. I told you that you didn't have all the facts, in the case. Total silence. You said the man was arrested for having an unregistered firearm. He wasn't, yet you still assert he was. He was placed under police guard in hospital because he shot two people in unknown circumstances. I told you that the trial wasn't until next month. Doesn't matter .. guilty until proven innocent. On the facts as stated in the article this guy has history. What that history is hasn't been released .. yet. The press release stated at the end that police investigations were continuing. Where are your critical reading skills?



> Please point out to me the part where I said that Australia's laws were bad, attacked Australia, or otherwise suggested that the world should change to meet my requirements.


Yeah, I'd be shooting at them also. But a) we don't have any registration of shotguns here, and b) I wouldn't register if we did, and c) under no circumstances am I prohibited from defending myself with deadly force after someone breaks into my home and attacks me. I would not want to live in the country that had a, b, or c as offenses.

Australian law ... you can't shoot people ... it's against OUR law. Your response; "I'd be shooting them also."
Australian law ... you must register firearms ... it's OUR law. Your response; "We don't have to register shotguns here. I wouldn't register if we did" 
Not only are you saying you don't like our law, you are actually saying you would defy American law if it changed.
Australian law ... you CAN defend yourself or your family (NOT property) with deadly force but if you elect to do so you will have to justify those actions in court. You are saying you have a right to kill someone whether they pose a threat or not.

If "I would not want to live in the country that had a, b, or c as offenses." is not criticism of our law, I can't imagine what is.



> It was pointed out to me that the victim wasn't arrested for using the shotgun, but rather for not registering it. I accept that as a valid point, but it doesn't change my opinion about living there, either.


 
He wasn't arrested for having an unregistered firearm. He was charged with having an unregistered firearm. He was arrested or put under armed guard because he shot two people under questionable cicumstances. The police had no discretion.

But, Bill, that's not the worst. Despite all the Australians giving you the same story, you assert that you know better. I would have thought that a logical person would say, well if what you say is correct, I might have been wrong, but no, you just keep digging in deeper and deeper.

As one of the other posters has said, you normally provide reasoned and well thought out posts but on this thread you really are way off the pace ... IMHO of course.


----------



## mook jong man (Feb 23, 2011)

Look , it's ok if Bill says he doesn't want to live in Australia.

These blokes said they'll have Bill's spot if he doesn't want it.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 23, 2011)

Bill, rather than take up half a page going through everything from the last two or three pages here, I'm going to do a sum up of both sides here, then you can correct it as you see fit, okay?

Your argument is simple. You feel that a gun is the best possible item to have in your home for self defence purposes. You then learnt that in Australia, as in many (read: most) other places, having a firearm for the express purposes of self defence is against the law (as in not accepted as a reasonable cause to possess said firearm). For this reason you have decided that you would not live in Australia.

You have backed this up by using a single occurance in which a shotgun was used, without any actual reference in the article as to whether or not it was required (as in reasonable force.... and yes, you'll come back with "if someone breaks into my house I'm going to assume that they mean to kill me or severely injure me, so I'll respond with deadly force", and that is not actually a real argument here, for reasons that I"ll get into in a moment), and argued that of course you are speaking from an American viewpoint, as well as saying that the Australian environment is not part of the equation. 

From our side, however, we have pointed out over and over again that the laws here are a reflection of our society, and that the purchase of firearms for self defence is not legal due to the lack of need (based on the society and environment we have here) that is present. We have also repeatedly pointed out that the Australian environment and situation is vital to this discussion, as the laws are a reflection of this country, not the US.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that you cannot simply transport a mentality of one country to the laws of another. If you are looking at the laws here, you have to look at the environment that they apply to, otherwise you have no basis to make the argument. It really is like the Eskimo not wanting to move somewhere that doesn't allow him protection against polar bears. He's too fixated on the issues of his present location to see what the realities are in his new one.

You have used a single occurance to justify this, and mentioned (when we bring up the rarity of this event) the rarity of being struck by lightening. You then state that we might as well be playing golf in a thunderstorm, for the relative risk, but again, that's not really an argument at all. Deliberately putting yourself in a situation which increases the chance of injury or death (for the record, it's 1 in 10 people hit by lightening that actually die, so this isn't necessarily fatal either) is very different to not having something which is not needed for anything other than the most rare of situations. But, so you know, even without playing golf in a thunderstorm, I'd suggest that being struck by lightening is a higher likelihood here. So is being eaten by a shark, so you know.

This honestly reminds me of a Simpsons episode, which features a bear wandering into the town at the beginning of the episode. This involves the township panicking, even though the bear did little more than rumage through a few trash bins. The township demanded action, and the mayor established a "Bear Patrol", guarding against non-existant bear attacks. Line of the episode? (Mayor Quimby) "Are these morons getting stupider, or just louder?" (Mayor's Aide) "Stupider, sir."

This is like your take here. It is a single occurance, which you have taken without it's context, and applied a response to it that is out of whack with the realities of the situation. Your argument of "it happened!" has as much weight as K-Man's example of school shootings being a reason to not send kids to school in the US (although it may be said that school shootings actually seem to be a more regular occurance....). It may also be noted that your constant assersion that "it happened!" isn't even strictly true based purely on the accounts given so far. All we have is that someone shot intruders, not that their life was being threatened, or anything similar that you have added to it.

To break it down, if you are talking about Australian laws, then you are talking about the laws as applied within an Australian context, in an Australian environment, in Australian situations. End of story there. If you were to move here (let's say it's not your choice, you get shifted for your career, or something similar), applying American mentalities and thought processes to what is then a foreign environment (to those thought processes) simply doesn't work.

And finally, your assertion that "it's all the same at the point of a spear" is really not what we were saying. What we are saying is that there is not going to be a spear for you to be at the point of (and no, that's not denial of the realities of danger and assault with deadly weapons, it's a recognition of our environment and how that pertains to his discussion). Different cultures, different countries, different mentalities, different environments all add up to different behaviours within those different societies, and that includes the criminal element as much as it does the law-abiding ones. If you are missing this point, then you will not understand why the laws here are different for the ones you have there.

To live in Australia means to live in Australia, and that means accepting that the laws here are reflective of our environment, not yours. If our environment was like yours, we'd most likely have similar laws. The fact that we don't should tell you a fair bit about the culture and society here. This is not America with a different legal system.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 23, 2011)

K-man said:


> Bill, you say that you have responded to all questions but ignored mine. I asked you what other country would you live in with your criteria. Total silence. I asked you if guns in schools would stop school shooting. Total silence. I told you that you didn't have all the facts, in the case. Total silence. You said the man was arrested for having an unregistered firearm. He wasn't, yet you still assert he was. He was placed under police guard in hospital because he shot two people in unknown circumstances. I told you that the trial wasn't until next month. Doesn't matter .. guilty until proven innocent. On the facts as stated in the article this guy has history. What that history is hasn't been released .. yet. The press release stated at the end that police investigations were continuing. Where are your critical reading skills?



Critical reading skills are more about reading one thing and thinking it says something else, but fair enough. I plead not having seen the questions.  I'll fix that now.

1) I have no idea.  I haven't investigated them all.  I haven't found one yet with the freedoms the USA has, so I'm kind of leaning towards none.

2) I have no idea.  At a well-known church shooting in Colorado Springs, the rampage was ended by an armed citizen who was a 'security volunteer'.  She took out the gunman. At Appalachian Law College a decade ago, a pair of students ran to their car, retreived their handguns, and forced the surrender of a gunman who had killed two.  So I'll guess 'yes', but I don't know.

3) I thought I answered that one.  I know I don't have all the facts.  I have enough to based a decision about my life on; I was not aware that Australia does not permit private gun ownership for the purposes of self-defense, and now I do.

4) When the victim is released from the hospital, will he walk free or be arrested?



> Australian law ... you can't shoot people ... it's against OUR law. Your response; "I'd be shooting them also."
> Australian law ... you must register firearms ... it's OUR law. Your response; "We don't have to register shotguns here. I wouldn't register if we did"
> Not only are you saying you don't like our law, you are actually saying you would defy American law if it changed.
> Australian law ... you CAN defend yourself or your family (NOT property) with deadly force but if you elect to do so you will have to justify those actions in court. You are saying you have a right to kill someone whether they pose a threat or not.
> ...



I also don't like rap music.  Nothing against it, I just don't like it.  Is that a criticism of rap musicians?



> He wasn't arrested for having an unregistered firearm. He was charged with having an unregistered firearm. He was arrested or put under armed guard because he shot two people under questionable cicumstances. The police had no discretion.



First, it's a distinction without a difference, and second, so what?  He's not free to go.



> But, Bill, that's not the worst. Despite all the Australians giving you the same story, you assert that you know better. I would have thought that a logical person would say, well if what you say is correct, I might have been wrong, but no, you just keep digging in deeper and deeper.



I just keep repeating my initial assertion; if Australia does not allow people to own guns for the stated purpose of self-defense, I don't want to live there.



> As one of the other posters has said, you normally provide reasoned and well thought out posts but on this thread you really are way off the pace ... IMHO of course.



Sorry you feel that way.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 23, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Your argument is simple. You feel that a gun is the best possible item to have in your home for self defence purposes. You then learnt that in Australia, as in many (read: most) other places, having a firearm for the express purposes of self defence is against the law (as in not accepted as a reasonable cause to possess said firearm). For this reason you have decided that you would not live in Australia.



Correct.



> You have backed this up by using a single occurance in which a shotgun was used, without any actual reference in the article as to whether or not it was required (as in reasonable force.... and yes, you'll come back with "if someone breaks into my house I'm going to assume that they mean to kill me or severely injure me, so I'll respond with deadly force", and that is not actually a real argument here, for reasons that I"ll get into in a moment), and argued that of course you are speaking from an American viewpoint, as well as saying that the Australian environment is not part of the equation.



Mostly yes.  I'll go with it.



> From our side, however, we have pointed out over and over again that the laws here are a reflection of our society, and that the purchase of firearms for self defence is not legal due to the lack of need (based on the society and environment we have here) that is present. We have also repeatedly pointed out that the Australian environment and situation is vital to this discussion, as the laws are a reflection of this country, not the US.



Correct that you have pointed this out.  And this is where those critical reading skills break down.  The Australian viewpoint is what it is.  I can't say it's right or wrong for Australia or Australians.  I can say it is wrong for me.  When it was pointed out that that's because I have an American viewpoint, I can only shrug.  Sure I do.  So, nu?

I also pointed out that a threat of the sort in the example I gave is universal.  It does not matter what country one is in when their life is threatened.  Let me try it another way.  I presume that people get robbed from time to time in Australia, yes?  Perhaps with a knife, since the criminals don't have guns (sorry, being a bit snide there).  So, there you are, having a stroll downtown Sydney, and you turn a corner and you're suddenly being robbed by a man with a knife.  Now, you may argue that in Australia, criminals with knives are a) rare and b) tend not to cut anyone.  Fine, fine, that's as may be.  However, when you have the point of that knife pressed into your gut, you are the same as a person anywhere in the world with a knife pressed into his gut.  It's universal.  Perhaps your criminals are more kindly disposed, perhaps not.  But the threat is universal.  You are no mind-reader, you don't know what's about to happen.  The criminal might not even know what's going to happen.  You may live, you may die.  Perhaps we can say that the odds of your being stabbed are lower in Australia than they would be in the USA. OK, fair enough.  But the threat remains.  And odds, no matter how slim, sometimes come up snake eyes.  If there is a chance you may be stabbed, the wise man has to take that into account when deciding what to do.

Of course, in the scenario I just described, I'd hand over my wallet and not draw a gun and start blazing away.  But that's not the point.  The point is that the threat - when it happens, no matter how unlikely - is universal.  It does not matter where you are when it happens; threat is threat.



> Basically, it comes down to the fact that you cannot simply transport a mentality of one country to the laws of another. If you are looking at the laws here, you have to look at the environment that they apply to, otherwise you have no basis to make the argument. It really is like the Eskimo not wanting to move somewhere that doesn't allow him protection against polar bears. He's too fixated on the issues of his present location to see what the realities are in his new one.



The difference is that there is zero chance the Eskimo will be eaten by a polar bear in Arizona.  There is a chance, no matter how small, that a person moving to Australia will be assaulted by people who break into his house.  The link I posted shows this to be true.  No matter the odds, it does happen.  If it happens, it could happen to you.  Being prepared for that chance, no matter how small it is, is wiser than pretending it won't happen.



> You have used a single occurance to justify this, and mentioned (when we bring up the rarity of this event) the rarity of being struck by lightening. You then state that we might as well be playing golf in a thunderstorm, for the relative risk, but again, that's not really an argument at all. Deliberately putting yourself in a situation which increases the chance of injury or death (for the record, it's 1 in 10 people hit by lightening that actually die, so this isn't necessarily fatal either) is very different to not having something which is not needed for anything other than the most rare of situations. But, so you know, even without playing golf in a thunderstorm, I'd suggest that being struck by lightening is a higher likelihood here. So is being eaten by a shark, so you know.



We buy insurance not because something is likely to happen, but in the unlikely even that it does happen.  We know that people get into accidents, have health problems, and die unexpectedly, even though the chances are low it will happen to us at a particular time.  So we buy insurance as a precaution.  Owning a gun for self-defense and knowing how and when to use it is a precaution.  I don't stop buying insurance because I move from a high accident rate location to a low accident rate location.  If I was unable to buy accident insurance, I'd be rather unwilling to live there.



> This honestly reminds me of a Simpsons episode, which features a bear wandering into the town at the beginning of the episode. This involves the township panicking, even though the bear did little more than rumage through a few trash bins. The township demanded action, and the mayor established a "Bear Patrol", guarding against non-existant bear attacks. Line of the episode? (Mayor Quimby) "Are these morons getting stupider, or just louder?" (Mayor's Aide) "Stupider, sir."



Here's the difference.  I'm not panicking, nor suggesting everyone go out hunting criminals.

In the American Southwest, many who go out in the desert or the mountains take along snake pistols.   How often do they need them?  Not often.  Usually easier to avoid the snake.  But it's possible to have a need to shoot a snake.  No harm if one goes out and does NOT shoot a snake.  Even if they NEVER shoot a snake.  It's there if they need it.  If you need it and do not have it, well, then you have a problem.



> This is like your take here. It is a single occurance, which you have taken without it's context, and applied a response to it that is out of whack with the realities of the situation. Your argument of "it happened!" has as much weight as K-Man's example of school shootings being a reason to not send kids to school in the US (although it may be said that school shootings actually seem to be a more regular occurance....). It may also be noted that your constant assersion that "it happened!" isn't even strictly true based purely on the accounts given so far. All we have is that someone shot intruders, not that their life was being threatened, or anything similar that you have added to it.



It's all that is necessary to prove that no matter how slim the odds, the odds sometimes require the predicted even to occur.  If I have a one-in-a-million chance of winning some lottery, then eventually I may win.  But another way of putting it is that every so often, someone does win.  The having-my-house-broken-into lottery and the being-assaulted-in-my-house lottery are not lotteries I want to win.  The chances are lower of it happening in Australia, but it *does* happen.  The example I quoted just happened to be in the news that day.

Some seem to equate low-odds with _'it does not happen'_.  Low odds just mean it seldom happens.  And that's cold comfort to the person to whom it happens.



> To break it down, if you are talking about Australian laws, then you are talking about the laws as applied within an Australian context, in an Australian environment, in Australian situations. End of story there. If you were to move here (let's say it's not your choice, you get shifted for your career, or something similar), applying American mentalities and thought processes to what is then a foreign environment (to those thought processes) simply doesn't work.



It does at the point of the knife blade.  If I get moved to Australia and one fine day I turn a corner in Sydney and there is a man pressing a knife blade into my gut, shall I inform him that the chances of his doing this are very low in Australia, so it's not really happening?

It rains everywhere.  Even places where the chances of rainfall are low.  If you stand somewhere long enough, you will get wet.



> And finally, your assertion that "it's all the same at the point of a spear" is really not what we were saying. What we are saying is that there is not going to be a spear for you to be at the point of (and no, that's not denial of the realities of danger and assault with deadly weapons, it's a recognition of our environment and how that pertains to his discussion). Different cultures, different countries, different mentalities, different environments all add up to different behaviours within those different societies, and that includes the criminal element as much as it does the law-abiding ones. If you are missing this point, then you will not understand why the laws here are different for the ones you have there.



I understand odds, and it appears you do not.  A small chance means it happens less frequently.  But it still happens.  And if you are the person it is happening to, you won't be comforted by the fact that it's rare.



> To live in Australia means to live in Australia, and that means accepting that the laws here are reflective of our environment, not yours. If our environment was like yours, we'd most likely have similar laws. The fact that we don't should tell you a fair bit about the culture and society here. This is not America with a different legal system.



Of course, and you're welcome to it.  A threat, however, is a threat.  That's universal.  It may be rare to be punched in the nose in Australia compared to being punched in the nose in the USA, but it hurts the same if it does happen to you.  What you appear to be saying is that the lower odds mean you won't be punched in the nose.  I feel that's a mistaken understanding of the odds.

The basic premise is this.  When betting for gain, betting the odds is a sucker's bet.  For example, buying a lottery ticket (and yes, I do buy lottery tickets, but I know it's a sucker's bet).  When betting against loss, betting the odds is a wise strategy.  We know our home probably won't burn down, but we buy fire insurance anyway.  If house fires are more rare in Australia than the USA, then I guess insurance would be cheaper; but I'd still buy it.  A gun for self-defense is insurance of a sort.  It's insurance I insist upon.  I'm not sure what else I can say.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 23, 2011)

Oh, dear Lord, Bill....



Bill Mattocks said:


> Correct.


 
Good, glad you agree with that.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Mostly yes. I'll go with it.


 
Okay, so by "mostly yes", do you mean that you agree that you feel the Australian viewpoint is not relevant? On our own laws in our own country with our own environment and our own culture? Just for clarification here. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Correct that you have pointed this out. And this is where those critical reading skills break down. The Australian viewpoint is what it is. I can't say it's right or wrong for Australia or Australians. I can say it is wrong for me. When it was pointed out that that's because I have an American viewpoint, I can only shrug. Sure I do. So, nu?


 
The thing we're saying is that you would need to embrace the Australian approach, at least as far as recognising the reasoning for such things as these laws, before you can really have an informed opinion. Other than that there is no rational decision you can make, as you have taken rational thoughts out of your opinion.



Bill Mattocks said:


> I also pointed out that a threat of the sort in the example I gave is universal. It does not matter what country one is in when their life is threatened. Let me try it another way. I presume that people get robbed from time to time in Australia, yes? Perhaps with a knife, since the criminals don't have guns (sorry, being a bit snide there). So, there you are, having a stroll downtown Sydney, and you turn a corner and you're suddenly being robbed by a man with a knife. Now, you may argue that in Australia, criminals with knives are a) rare and b) tend not to cut anyone. Fine, fine, that's as may be. However, when you have the point of that knife pressed into your gut, you are the same as a person anywhere in the world with a knife pressed into his gut. It's universal. Perhaps your criminals are more kindly disposed, perhaps not. But the threat is universal. You are no mind-reader, you don't know what's about to happen. The criminal might not even know what's going to happen. You may live, you may die. Perhaps we can say that the odds of your being stabbed are lower in Australia than they would be in the USA. OK, fair enough. But the threat remains. And odds, no matter how slim, sometimes come up snake eyes. If there is a chance you may be stabbed, the wise man has to take that into account when deciding what to do.


 
Here we have laws regarding use of force (as do you). Under these laws, if a jury finds that you have reacted beyond what would be reasonable force, you are going to be in a fair amount of trouble. That includes simply deciding that, as you can't read a muggers mind that they may want to kill you, and responding in kind before such a threat is actually manifest. If all they are doing is putting the point of a knife against you, and asking for your money, that may not be taken as a threat of lethal violence. As a result, should you respond in such a way, you could very easily end up in jail for quite a while

One thing I will state here, though, is that reasonable force laws do not prohibit such things, they simply state that the force must be what others would consider reasonable. If they are screaming that they want to stick you for some percieved fault or slight, go for it. But if they are only asking your money, that may not be enough.

Oh, and you may have noticed that my post said that, to use your metaphor, there would not be a spear to be at the point of, implying that a lethal threat is not implicit in this scenario, if you're going to pick people up on what you think is a critical reading issue (for the record, I'd say that you're having more issues with that than the rest here, honestly).



Bill Mattocks said:


> Of course, in the scenario I just described, I'd hand over my wallet and not draw a gun and start blazing away. But that's not the point. The point is that the threat - when it happens, no matter how unlikely - is universal. It does not matter where you are when it happens; threat is threat.


 
Yes, a threat is a threat. But not every threat is a lethal threat, and not every threat requires a lethal responce. Again, with the critical reading there Bill. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> The difference is that there is zero chance the Eskimo will be eaten by a polar bear in Arizona. There is a chance, no matter how small, that a person moving to Australia will be assaulted by people who break into his house. The link I posted shows this to be true. No matter the odds, it does happen. If it happens, it could happen to you. Being prepared for that chance, no matter how small it is, is wiser than pretending it won't happen.


 
Actually, I used Barbados, but Arizona works well too. You're right that the Eskimo won't need to protect himself against polar bears there, but that wasn't really my point either. My point was that in moving from one location to another means you need to understand what the dangers in a new environment are as compared to a previous one. The wildlife dangers in the Arctic are different, and require different responces from the dangers in Arizona, or Barbados, or anywhere else. 

And the link you provided, one more time, did not present any evidence that there are assaults with lethal intent (note: I am not saying there aren't any, just that that link is not evidence of it). So using this story to support that claim doesn't hold up. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> We buy insurance not because something is likely to happen, but in the unlikely even that it does happen. We know that people get into accidents, have health problems, and die unexpectedly, even though the chances are low it will happen to us at a particular time. So we buy insurance as a precaution. Owning a gun for self-defense and knowing how and when to use it is a precaution. I don't stop buying insurance because I move from a high accident rate location to a low accident rate location. If I was unable to buy accident insurance, I'd be rather unwilling to live there.


 
This is actually not a good similie either, Bill. But it's a big point, and one that hasn't come up yet as to our reasons, so I'm going to cover it at the end of this. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Here's the difference. I'm not panicking, nor suggesting everyone go out hunting criminals.


 
Panicking? No, your not. But you are acting in a way that doesn't fit with the viewpoint you're presenting, by applying a fear-based mentality where it doesn't exist and isn't appropriate.



Bill Mattocks said:


> In the American Southwest, many who go out in the desert or the mountains take along snake pistols. How often do they need them? Not often. Usually easier to avoid the snake. But it's possible to have a need to shoot a snake. No harm if one goes out and does NOT shoot a snake. Even if they NEVER shoot a snake. It's there if they need it. If you need it and do not have it, well, then you have a problem.


 
You know, I'd suggest the odds of coming across a snake is a little higher than an armed mugger out there, yeah? Add to that the snake not making a conscious threat, but acting on instict relative to the type of animal it is, and this is a very different reason to own and carry a firearm. And, for the record, perfectly legal as a reason to own one here, if you live in an area where that is a potential circumstance. Not sure how it supports your position, then.  



Bill Mattocks said:


> It's all that is necessary to prove that no matter how slim the odds, the odds sometimes require the predicted even to occur. If I have a one-in-a-million chance of winning some lottery, then eventually I may win. But another way of putting it is that every so often, someone does win. The having-my-house-broken-into lottery and the being-assaulted-in-my-house lottery are not lotteries I want to win. The chances are lower of it happening in Australia, but it *does* happen. The example I quoted just happened to be in the news that day.


 
The problem here is that you are attributing details and values to this single account that are not present. As a result, nothing is proven by it. House break-in's here occur almost exclusively when people aren't home. Now, you're going to say that my phrase "almost" there shows that it does happen, but what I mean by that is to allow for the possibility, which is not the same as saying that it is a reason to change the laws. Once again, more reasons to follow.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Some seem to equate low-odds with _'it does not happen'_. Low odds just mean it seldom happens. And that's cold comfort to the person to whom it happens.


 
No, that's not where I'm coming from. I recognise that low odds means seldom happening, rather than never happening. But you need to understand that relative risk needs to come up as well (that's what we'll deal with soon). 



Bill Mattocks said:


> It does at the point of the knife blade. If I get moved to Australia and one fine day I turn a corner in Sydney and there is a man pressing a knife blade into my gut, shall I inform him that the chances of his doing this are very low in Australia, so it's not really happening?


 
That's an alarmist viewpoint, and not an intelligent one. You know that that's not the case. For instance, I could point out that in most situations, if they have a knife point pressed into your gut, they are threatening you in order to extort money or something similar, not kill you. If they're wanting to kill you, you won't feel or see the knife first. And in both cases, if you don't have your gun out already, you won't get it out in time either. I mean, what are you going to do, ask them to wait for you to get out your equaliser?



Bill Mattocks said:


> It rains everywhere. Even places where the chances of rainfall are low. If you stand somewhere long enough, you will get wet.


 
Wonderful argument.... so what you're saying is that if you stay in the one house all your life, you will have it invaded, and someone will try to kill you? Definately? Really? This argument has no merit to your position, Bill. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> I understand odds, and it appears you do not. A small chance means it happens less frequently. But it still happens. And if you are the person it is happening to, you won't be comforted by the fact that it's rare.


 
Now, I wouldn't say that I don't understand odds, it seems you aren't understanding relative risk. In simple terms, bad things happen, no-one is prepared for everything, and no-one is comforted by the odds against it happening when it does. Again, this argument has no merit here. 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Of course, and you're welcome to it. A threat, however, is a threat. That's universal. It may be rare to be punched in the nose in Australia compared to being punched in the nose in the USA, but it hurts the same if it does happen to you. What you appear to be saying is that the lower odds mean you won't be punched in the nose. I feel that's a mistaken understanding of the odds.


 
... And being punched in the nose is related to needing to own a gun for self defence how exactly? Again, a threat is a threat, but not all threats are the same.



Bill Mattocks said:


> The basic premise is this. When betting for gain, betting the odds is a sucker's bet. For example, buying a lottery ticket (and yes, I do buy lottery tickets, but I know it's a sucker's bet). When betting against loss, betting the odds is a wise strategy. We know our home probably won't burn down, but we buy fire insurance anyway. If house fires are more rare in Australia than the USA, then I guess insurance would be cheaper; but I'd still buy it. A gun for self-defense is insurance of a sort. It's insurance I insist upon. I'm not sure what else I can say.


 
Okay, now we'll get to one of the main reasons the "insurance" argument, the "threat with a knife in order to extort money", and the "punch to the nose" argument fails completely. It's all about relative risk.

What that means is that having a gun around the house is a risk. Having it to go hunting lowers the risk, as there is no need to have the gun and ammunition kept together (which by law can't happen here), or out of a locked storage space (typically a safe - again, a legal requirement here). Having it for home defence would mean it would need to be accessible and loaded (I believe this was mentioned earlier by yourself). Problem is, of course, that once there is a loaded, accessible gun in the house, the risk of shooting and injuring or killing someone leaps up enormously. When that risk is applied against the potential need for use, the odds of needing it are not good enough to justify having a gun for such a reason in this country.

It's not about whether or not home invasions happen, it's about relative risk against the likelihood of accidental injury, even of home invaders if they are not intending homicide (say, just wanting to burgle, and not realising you're home). And in that light, there is no support for allowing potential tragedy to our populace. Really, this is what we mean when we say you really do need to understand the Australian take on things. There are far more factors than just whether or not there are very rare occasions of people invading other's homes.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 23, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> It's not about whether or not home invasions happen, it's about relative risk against the likelihood of accidental injury, even of home invaders if they are not intending homicide (say, just wanting to burgle, and not realising you're home). And in that light, there is no support for allowing potential tragedy to our populace. Really, this is what we mean when we say you really do need to understand the Australian take on things. There are far more factors than just whether or not there are very rare occasions of people invading other's homes.



Chris, I resign.  You win.  I can't go on arguing the same points.  It *is* about the rare occasions which people invade homes, and nothing else, in my estimation.  It is *not* about that to you.  I think we've reached stalemate.  :asian:


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 23, 2011)

> ...even of home invaders if they are not intending homicide (say, just wanting to burgle, and not realising you're home).


 
This line of thinking just boggles me. There is no more dangerous situation out there than having criminal intruders in your home. You want to gamble your life on the assumption of anothers intentions?!?

In most states in the US; burglary is a crime that you are justified to respond to with deadly force.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 23, 2011)

We are not talking about the US, and that has ramifications across the board in this example. In Australia, a home invader is a burglar with no weapons in the vast majority of instances. As stated at the beginning of the thread, those rare occasions where it is an armed intruder is pretty much always within the criminal fraternity, so adherance to laws isn't really going to be a concern there (by the victim as it relates to owning weaponry, hence the reference to bikies in the story that sparked all of this). That means that there are many far more dangerous situations that people can and do find themselves in in this country. It also means that it is not something that is justifiable to be met with deadly force according to our laws in the main.

One last time, if you are talking about Australian laws, you really do need to understand why those laws are the way they are, which includes understanding the Australian criminal culture and environment. If you don't understand that, and only apply the American culture as that is all you have experience of and therefore understanding of, then you are not in any position to even pass cursory judgement on Australian laws.

And I do have to say, your signature actually says it quite well, when taken in context. The entire passage has Jesus talking to the Apostles before the arrest in Gethsemane, asking them if they remember when he sent them out with no bag, no coat, no purse, and whether they needed anything at that time. Their answer is no. He then says that those that have bags and purses should get them, and those that have coats should sell them and get swords, as the time when they are needed is at hand. He is told they have two swords, and Jesus replies that that is enough.

Lesson here, there is a time and a place for weapons and use of force, but if the circumstances do not require it, then they are not needed. It's a matter of recognising what the circumstances actually are, and applying an American take on violent crime to the overtly non-violent crime in Australia just isn't recognising what the circumstances actually are.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 23, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> We are not talking about the US, and that has ramifications across the board in this example. In Australia, a home invader is a burglar with no weapons in the vast majority of instances. .


 
One doesn't just prepare to defend against "the vast majority of instances," one prepares for the _*worst*_. WIth that in mind:

Melbourne Man and son stabbed in home invasion \

Home invasion: gun pointed at Sydney man's head 

Duo arrested over home invasion 

Man stabbed sitting on couch in Melbourne home invasion

In each instance, the people  perpetrating these crimes were armed and/or accompanied by accomplices-a legitimate threat of deadly force, and by U.S. self defense doctrine, a threat that can be responded to with deadly force.

In every instance,_ here in the U.S._, had the victims of these crimes been alerted and armed, or able to secure arms and use them, they'd have been justified in the use of deadly force. In my case, since most of the firearms in my possession were purchased _used ,_or inherited_,_ they're not registered in my name-and that's not illegal, just a "flaw" in our registration system.

And one shouldn't think for a minute that a lone unarmed intruder cannot be justifiably shot, _here in the U.S._-as I said upthread, I'd find out if they were armed after I shot them. Of course, I've repellled two "home invasions " in my life, and in both instances the sound of my chambering a round in my shotgun and saying _"Get out of my house *or I will shoot you*._ made the intruder flee. The way I see it, if someone is breaking into my home-_when I'm home_-their intentions aren't just to come take some of my stuff-their intentions are towards the occupants of my home, and I have to assume the worst.

Of course, it seems as though some of you are taking the positiion that I should have determined if they were armed first, or assumed that they weren't (were I in Australia, perhaps) but I wouldn't risk my wife and children's lives in that way. Like Bill, I'm glad I don't live in Australia, for a host of reasons, not the least of which is our castle doctrine, but mostly because I was born here, and have really come to love New Mexico.....


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 23, 2011)

> _We are not talking about the US, and that has ramifications across the board in this example. *In Australia, a home invader is a burglar with no weapons in the vast majority of instances.* ._


 
Which is discovered AFTER the fact. Planning/teaching/training self-defense with the mindset of "burglars are nothing to be too scared of, they wont hurt you and are usually unarmed" just seems odd coming from a martial arts forum.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 23, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Lesson here, there is a time and a place for weapons and use of force, but if the circumstances do not require it, then they are not needed.


 

And when they are? Then what do you do?


----------



## Blade96 (Feb 23, 2011)

"You are frequently one of the more intelligent and thoughtful posters on  this forum.  Even when I disagree with you, I am usually able to  recognize my disagreement without the taint of feeling like you are a  jerk or something.  You are articulate and you express your positions  well, and you are not stupid, which I cannot say for everyone.  But in  this case I think you are simply wrong."

I agree with this. The Aussies in this thread are just full of win! I had fun reading this! And like you, I love Bill. He's my friend. But I also think he's wrong here. Btw My uncle had his place burglarized, and my next door neighbor had his garage broken into. None of us have guns. I have grown up without ever seeing one. We dont feel we need them. btw we can have guns here but they have regulations. I dont see anything wrong with that. Our gun laws were put into place in 1995 for a good reason - the Montreal Masscre.

and that sentence 'better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it" It can see it making sense - if it applies to condoms.

That and saying you wont live somewhere just cause you cant own a gun how you like is a stupid reason to me.


----------



## K-man (Feb 23, 2011)

elder999 said:


> One doesn't just prepare to defend against "the vast majority of instances," one prepares for the _*worst*_. WIth that in mind:
> 
> Melbourne Man and son stabbed in home invasion \
> 
> ...


No-one is saying we don't have violent crime and no-one is saying that home invasion doesn't happen. Having a weaopon in the home does not eliminate the risk of harm. With all the weapons you guys have, it hasn't reduced the risk of harm. Per capita you have 10 times the deaths by shooting than us.

Even in the first example you quoted here, the guys were after drugs. As we were pointing out, much of our violence is within the criminal fraternity. 

We have more of a problem with knives in Australia. Pretty much anyone in the country has access to a knife, much like your guns 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




. I use mine to cut the steak and keep them in the kitchen. To be honest I don't have even a stick in my bedroom and I don't know anyone here that feels any need to have a weapon in the bedroom.

In fact, in self defence I teach people not to carry a weapon. An untrained person with a weapon is likely to lose the weapon and have it used against them. Woken in the middle of the night, by the time you grab a weapon and orient youself, an armed intruder in the room will probably get you first anyway.

Most of our violence occurs in or around our nightclubs in the early hours after too many people have too much to drink.

What I have said is, in Australia we don't need to be armed with guns. Our violent crime rates per capita are a fraction of America's.

Elder, like with Bill, I enjoy your thought out posts but here you too seem to have jumped ship.


> *Like Bill, I'm glad I don't live in Australia, for a host of reasons, not the least of which is our castle doctrine, but mostly because I was born here, and have really come to love New Mexico....*


 If you can put your hand on your heart and say that you meant what you have written, then I really do feel sympathy for you.

Like you I'm glad I live in my country for many reasons. I'm glad I don't live in Libya, I'm glad I don't live in Somalia, I'm glad I don't live in the Congo, I'm glad I don't live in Zimbabwe, I'm glad I don't live in Bangladesh and there are probably another hundred other countries that I'm glad I don't live in because of poverty or violence or lack of democracy. To say "I'm *glad* I don't live in Australia, or Canada, or New Zealand, or Great Britain (although the weather there can be crap 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) or other like countries is just plain stupid. For me, I consider myself extremely fortunate to live in a country that on the whole is free of violence, is democratic, is able to care for its citizens and affords the lifestyle we all enjoy. Let's celebrate the lifestyle we enjoy and think a little about those who have nothing like the lifestyle and priviledges we take for granted, for whom each day is a matter of subsistance. :asian:


----------



## Ken Morgan (Feb 23, 2011)

Were all unique, just like everyone else.

Im glad I live in Canada, with our freedoms and culture, and I wouldnt choose to live anywhere else. However if I had to live in the United States, I would be a gun owning member of that society as that society almost demands one to own a gun.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 23, 2011)

K-man said:


> Elder, like with Bill, I enjoy your thought out posts but here you too seem to have jumped ship.
> If you can put your hand on your heart and say that you meant what you have written, then I really do feel sympathy for you.


 
Yeah, I can. I've been to Australia, worked with Australians and New Zealanders, and-as a _"brown fella"_, I'm *glad* I don't live in Australia-got nothing to do with being able to shoot a home invader.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 23, 2011)

The thing "Non Americans" don't understand is that "guns" are really about our dogged defense of our individual freedoms. It's not about being "paranoid", it's about us having the freedom to own a gun if we so choose. A large chunk of us would rather live with the possibility of gun violence than give the freedom of gun ownership up to the nanny state. This has been so since our inception:



> "Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
> 
> -- Patrick Henry





> "No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state.... Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."
> 
> -- State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788



Ultimately..in the USA its not about "self-defense", it's about the government not being allowed to disarm us and assume the ultimate power.


----------



## K-man (Feb 23, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Yeah, I can. I've been to Australia, worked with Australians and New Zealanders, and-as a _"brown fella"_, I'm *glad* I don't live in Australia-got nothing to do with being able to shoot a home invader.


Well, racism is wrong where ever it happens and I hope we are moving to end that sort of discrimination or abuse.  I can accept that as a reason for not wanting to live here based on your personal experience.      :asian:


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 25, 2011)

Hmm, tried to post this reply yesterday, and lost it, let's see if it works this time...



Archangel M said:


> Which is discovered AFTER the fact. Planning/teaching/training self-defense with the mindset of "burglars are nothing to be too scared of, they wont hurt you and are usually unarmed" just seems odd coming from a martial arts forum.


 
Really? For one thing, I don't think anyone here has suggested that burglars are nothing to be scared of, all of the people that I've known who have had their houses broken into have been quite scared for quite a while afterwards... 

Actually, what we are talking about here is a realistic awareness of the realities of the environment. And, for us, that means that burglars opt to break into houses when there's no one home (for the record, that's the way it has gone down in each instance that anyone I know has had it happen). And surely a realistic awareness is something that should be encouraged, rather than giving way to paranoia?



Archangel M said:


> And when they are? Then what do you do?


 
Now, that was not the point of my post there. The point was more that recognising when weaponry are seen to be a reasonable consideration becomes part of the equation, and when they aren't required (by the circumstances surrounding you), then they aren't required. Our lifestyle, criminal culture, environment, and so on do not require guns as a means of self defence. And here I am speaking about the overall general populace and culture, which is the basis of information that laws are made from and for, rather than potential single occurances.

But to address your question, you're really asking the wrong one there. What you should ask is what would be required for us to feel that having firearms as self defence weapons. And the answer to that is when the relative risk is outweighed by the potential benefits of such usage. And at present, it doesn't. If that were to change, and guns suddenly became commonplace in Australia, then the laws would change as well. But that is not the present case.



Archangel M said:


> The thing "Non Americans" don't understand is that "guns" are really about our dogged defense of our individual freedoms. It's not about being "paranoid", it's about us having the freedom to own a gun if we so choose. A large chunk of us would rather live with the possibility of gun violence than give the freedom of gun ownership up to the nanny state. This has been so since our inception:


 
That, frankly, is a nothing argument.

To begin with, this entire thread is about Bill's statement that he would not want to live here (or anywhere else, it seems) as we do not allow the ownership of firearms for the purpose of self defence. Nothing to do with an American sense of "individual freedoms", although Bill did bring that up later. It is simply to do with our laws not allowing guns for self defence.

Now, I'm going to make a point that has been made a number of times already, but seems to be glossed over a fair bit. Here, in this country, Australia, the Great Southern Land, Down Under, most adults can legally own firearms. Really, you can. All you need is a licence to own them. So there is no "freedom" being infringed by prohibitting anyone from owning guns, okay? Just the reasons that we allow you to own such a weapon. And we don't allow guns for the express purpose of shooting people (and yes, that is the basic case when owning it for self defence, it may not be to puposefully shoot someone, but it is to use against another human being, bad guy or not). Really, we're not that fond of people shooting each other over here. So if you have another (legitimate) reason to own it, ranging from owning a farm, to simply enjoying shooting on the range, that's fine. But, for safety, you will need to comply with basic requirements for the storage of the weapon and ammunition (keeping them seperate), as well as (in the case of shooting on a firing range) sticking to established routes to and from the range itself.

These requirements are in place for a simple reason; they keep people safe. Now, this is not the same as a "nanny state", as that would be a state which removes all decisions from you. That is not the case here. These are basic requirements for the overall safety, and should be looked at the same way as ensuring that all cars have airbags, seatbelts, and reverse lights. Is that an infringement of the car manufacturers' freedoms? Is needing to wear a seatbelt an infringement and instigation of a "nanny state"? If you think it is, then maybe you need to look a little more realistically at exactly what a government is supposed to do.

And owning a gun as an expression of your freedom to own a gun is fine, remember, we have the same freedom to own one here as well, we just frown on the reason for owning one being the use on other people. But for that statement to actually be true, then the reverse must, by necessity, also be true. In other words, not owning a gun is just as much an expression of that same freedom. But the wording here by Bill and yourself seems to imply that if you don't own a gun, you aren't free (?). That is not freedom, it's barely a thought process.

The idea of prefering to live in a country with the risk of violent assault with a firearm (gun violence) rather than live in a country which does not have such a risk, and therefore doesn't have the need for it's populace to own such weapons, as the lack of requirement seems to equate to a lack of freedom frankly sounds rather delusional to me. There is no lack of freedom here, and yet, there is no gun culture either.

Hey, here's a fun fact. Did you know that Australia is one of the only countries in the "developed world" that doesn't have something akin to a Bill of Rights (in fact, I think it's the only one)? Does that mean that we're not as free as those that have them? Actually, we prefer to think quite the opposite.... we're aware of our intrinsic rights and freedoms that they have no need to be written down and codified. The very fact that you may need to write down what your "freedoms" are implies to me that you actually have far fewer than you may think, and need them penned in and defined. Basically, if you need someone to tell you what your freedoms and rights are, in case someone infringes them, then you probably didn't have them in the first place. We haven't found cause to hem ours in like that. 



Archangel M said:


> Ultimately..in the USA its not about "self-defense", it's about the government not being allowed to disarm us and assume the ultimate power.


 
That is far from the "ultimate power" for government. And again, the government here are not "disarming" the populace by not allowing guns for the purpose of shooting people, by the way.

America has many many immense strengths, that have taken it far beyond it's beginnings as a colony for persecuted religious peoples. But those strengths are also the source of some rather large weaknesses as well. This false sense of "personal freedoms", both the lack and holding of them, would be one of them.



elder999 said:


> Yeah, I can. I've been to Australia, worked with Australians and New Zealanders, and-as a _"brown fella"_, I'm *glad* I don't live in Australia-got nothing to do with being able to shoot a home invader.


 
Elder, I'm sorry that that has been your experience. While I have seen such racism here (certainly not about to deny that it exists), it is more of a rare thing that I have seen. Should you visit here again, hopefully your experience will be far more positive.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 25, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> ). And surely a realistic awareness is something that should be encouraged, rather than giving way to paranoia?


 
Here, people break into houses with people at home-that's the reality.....and, as I've posted, while a rarity, the same is true in Australia.





Chris Parker said:


> ). Now, that was not the point of my post there. The point was more that recognising when weaponry are seen to be a reasonable consideration becomes part of the equation, and when they aren't required (by the circumstances surrounding you), then they aren't required. Our lifestyle, criminal culture, environment, and so on do not require guns as a means of self defence. And here I am speaking about the overall general populace and culture, which is the basis of information that laws are made from and for, rather than potential single occurances.
> 
> But to address your question, you're really asking the wrong one there. What you should ask is what would be required for us to feel that having firearms as self defence weapons. And the answer to that is when the relative risk is outweighed by the potential benefits of such usage. And at present, it doesn't. If that were to change, and *guns suddenly became commonplace in Australia*, then the laws would change as well. But that is not the present case.


 
Again, you seem to think that guns are only an appropriate response when the assailants are armed with guns-this isn't true: if they're armed with knives, machetes, baseball bats, hammers, screwdrivers, or _there are simply more than one of them_, *in this country* deadly force is an appropriate level of response.........just as it is when they break into your house, and *you're home.*







Chris Parker said:


> ). Now, I'm going to make a point that has been made a number of times already, but seems to be glossed over a fair bit. Here, in this country, Australia, the Great Southern Land, Down Under, most adults can legally own firearms. Really, you can. All you need is a licence to own them. So there is no "freedom" being infringed by prohibitting anyone from owning guns, okay? Just the reasons that we allow you to own such a weapon. And we don't allow guns for the express purpose of shooting people (and yes, that is the basic case when owning it for self defence, it may not be to puposefully shoot someone, but it is to use against another human being, bad guy or not). Really, we're not that fond of people shooting each other over here. So if you have another (legitimate) reason to own it, ranging from owning a farm, to simply enjoying shooting on the range, that's fine. But, for safety*, you will need to comply with basic requirements for the storage of the weapon and ammunition (keeping them seperate), as well as (in the case of shooting on a firing range) sticking to established routes to and from the range itself. *


 
And this is for the Canadians as well: there is nothing in these requirements that would keep _me_ from rapidly arming myself and shooting an intruder. Maybe not as rapidly as simply reaching, but I could open two of these:
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Seen here, and a bunch of other places....and not too expensive, either.



Chris Parker said:


> ). These requirements are in place for a simple reason; they keep people safe.


 
I'd argue that they* don't.* 



Chris Parker said:


> . Elder, I'm sorry that that has been your experience. While I have seen such racism here (certainly not about to deny that it exists), it is more of a rare thing that I have seen. Should you visit here again, hopefully your experience will be far more positive.


 

My experience was pretty positive-and I've been in this skin all my life, and traveled all over the world: racism isn't _rare_ *anywhere*.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Feb 25, 2011)

Jumping into this thread late I know but it still seems to be going and I saw a relevant article in a local paper last night on my way home from work. Unfortunately the paper doesn't have an online version and I don't have the hard copy in front of me so I can't quote it verbatim but basically, 2 men broke into a house in the Melbourne suburb of Roxburgh Park 2 nights ago with an _unknown object_ and scared the occupant who was in his living room before burgling the place. The article did not mention any injury to the homeowner apart from psychological trauma. Like Chris Parker and Rayban I live in Melbourne and in fact am only about a half hour drive away from the suburb in question. However I'm not fazed by the report or even worried. Roxburgh Park and it's surrounding suburbs have a reputation for attracting some of the criminal element mentioned in previous posts so it's not a huge shock either.

Nor am I going to run off to source firearms in case my house gets invaded. I've got my dog in the backyard, my neighbours keep an eye on my place if I'm not home as I do for them and my "weapons" (wooden training gear from MA) are in the house either near my bed or at hand because that's just where I put them down last. If push comes to shove and I have to use my MA training I'd be fine with having a hanbo at hand as we train to break bones and stop opponents in armor. I'd also be able to justify that a whole lot easier if I had to. There's no point in me stressing about the attacker having a gun or my inability to own one because statistically speaking it's such a low percentage that it's not a day to day concern over here. 

I mentioned this thread to one of my female friends and her first reaction was "what if you're elderly, disabled or a WOMAN?' Then we'll scream and run, scratch their eyes out or bash their head in with a lamp. Maybe, just maybe, we'll stab them with that knife we were using to slice meat a moment ago." Discounting the natural survival instinct of someone just because of their lack of training can be a serious mistake. In different contexts there are stories of people performing superhuman feats of strength and speed under adrenaline when they thought their life was in danger or even if it's not.... In recent news there was a little old lady in the UK who fended off a gang of would be jewel thiefs wielding crowbars using just her handbag before chasing them down the street. That just shows a handbag in the hands of a sweet nana going shopping can be just as effective as a gun against a group of thugs with crowbars. Something to think about...


----------



## billc (Feb 25, 2011)

I'm glad I don't live in Australia because of Jack Jumper ants and Funnel web spiders.  That is the spider down there that can bite through a toe nail isn't it?





  Jack jumpers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35ZLJV4YYjQ&feature=fvst Funnel web spider (yikes!!!)


----------



## Supra Vijai (Feb 25, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I'm glad I don't live in Australia because of Jack Jumper ants and Funnel web spiders. That is the spider down there that can bite through a toe nail isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Haha we were talking about that in another thread a while back and mate, down here, EVERYTHING is trying to kill you


----------



## elder999 (Feb 25, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I'm glad I don't live in Australia because of Jack Jumper ants and Funnel web spiders. That is the spider down there that can bite through a toe nail isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

And all sorts of snakes....and saltwater crocs......and scary, scary aquatic life, like the greater hairless windsufer:
:lfao:


----------



## K-man (Feb 25, 2011)

elder999 said:


> And all sorts of snakes....and saltwater crocs......and scary, scary aquatic life, like the greater hairless windsufer:
> :lfao:


 Thanks to Greenpeace, this is one that got away from the Japanese, in the Southern Ocean just last month.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 26, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Here, people break into houses with people at home-that's the reality.....and, as I've posted, while a rarity, the same is true in Australia.


 
I've already stated that if we had the same violent criminal culture that the US has, we'd probably have a different set of laws in place. But we don't. So any comment on what happens in the US is not really relevant to a discussion of Australian laws. Should the rare occurances increase, things may change, until then, rare just isn't enough to convince us that raising the risk of accidental injury or death to friends and family members by having a loaded gun in a house is a good thing.



elder999 said:


> Again, you seem to think that guns are only an appropriate response when the assailants are armed with guns-this isn't true: if they're armed with knives, machetes, baseball bats, hammers, screwdrivers, or _there are simply more than one of them_, *in this country* deadly force is an appropriate level of response.........just as it is when they break into your house, and *you're home.*


 
No, that's really not the case at all. In fact, the only time I believe I've talked about a gun to go against firearm wielding bandits is when that was the scenario put forth by others. I completely agree that a lethal weapon is a lethal weapon, whether due to impact, edge, puncture, or projectile. The thing is, though, a baseball bat is unlikely to "accidentally go off" and kill or injure. And again, what happens in the US is no influence on Australian society and laws in this regard. 



elder999 said:


> And this is for the Canadians as well: there is nothing in these requirements that would keep _me_ from rapidly arming myself and shooting an intruder. Maybe not as rapidly as simply reaching, but I could open two of these:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Actually, our laws on how the firearm and ammunition are stored dictate that there needs to be a distance between the two, so you can't just reach from one to another (helps limit crimes of passion that way, I suppose, as well as reducing the risk even further of both being accidentally discovered and obtained by someone who shouldn't have them. I mean, if we go back to the Columbine School shooting, the two boys stole the guns and ammo from one of their grandfathers, from memory, yeah? This helps avoid such things). A number of people that I know that own pistols for recreational shooting (at a firing range) actually have both stored completely seperate to their property, at a storage facitlity that may be a few suburbs away. That way there's no risk of their kids discovering them at all. 



elder999 said:


> I'd argue that they* don't.*




I think you're thinking about the idea of keeping people safe from a completely different angle. I'm talking about stopping people accidentally killing or injuring each other, you're talking about keeping people safe from outside threats by having the weapon at hand. That may show the different mindsets we have as countries here.



elder999 said:


> My experience was pretty positive-and I've been in this skin all my life, and traveled all over the world: racism isn't _rare_ *anywhere*.


 
Very true and sad at the same time. And I'm glad that your overall experience was positive here.



elder999 said:


> billcihak said:
> 
> 
> > I'm glad I don't live in Australia because of Jack Jumper ants and Funnel web spiders. That is the spider down there that can bite through a toe nail isn't it?
> ...


 
Now, while the snakes are very pretty, the crocs are rather majestic, the funnel webs are wonderously designed, and the ants are very impressive in their efficacy, I really have no argument against the dreaded Greater Hairless Windsurfer.... even I'm not keen on encountering that without some kind of heavy club-like implement!


----------



## billc (Feb 26, 2011)

Here are some crime statistics from John Lott, an economist here in the states who has researched the issue of guns and the reduction or increase in crime rates as people are armed or disarmed by their governments.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/NationalPost61504.html


The same logic applies overseas: With violent crime and gun crime soaring in the United Kingdom, where handguns are already banned, the British government is banning imitation guns. And in Australia, state governments are banning ceremonial swords. 
Yet, the laws in Australia, Britain and Canada were adopted under what gun control advocates would argue were ideal conditions. All three countries adopted laws that applied to the entire country. Australia and Britain are surrounded by water, and thus do not have the easy smuggling problem that Canada claims with regard to the United States. The new attempts to ban toys or cast blame on the United States, reek of desperation. 
Crime did not fall in England after handguns were banned in 1997. Quite the contrary, crime rose sharply. In May, the British government reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the last four years. Serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged 29% higher than 1996; robbery was 24% higher; murders 27% higher. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the armed robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels. The violent crime rate in England is now double that in the United States. Australia saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 gun control measures banned most firearms. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed than they did the year before the law went into effect. Murder and manslaughter rates remained unchanged, but armed robbery rates increased 74%, aggravated assaults by 32%. Australia's violent crime rate is also now double America's. In contrast, the United States took the opposite approach and made it easier for individuals to carry guns. Thirty-seven of the 50 states now have right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a criminal background check. Violent crime in the United States has fallen much faster than in Canada, and violent crime has fallen even faster inright-to-carry states than for the nation as a whole. The states with the fastest growth in gun ownership have also experienced the biggest drops in violent crime rates.

Another article on the Australian brand of gun control and its effectiveness:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

. But 12 years on, new research suggests the government response to Port Arthur was a waste of public money and has made no difference to the country's gun-related death rates.

But by pulling back and looking purely at the statistics, the answer "is there in black and white," she says. "The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html#ixzz1F4jkxfRA​ 
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html#ixzz1F4jGz04s​


----------



## billc (Feb 26, 2011)

I think what our friends in Australia may not understand about Americans, especially those who support the individual right to own firearms, is that the right is meant for mainly, defence against government tyranny.  Another post by big don points out the unarmed factor in mass murders around the world, you can look that one up.  Your country, which does limit your access to guns, and soon swords, and probably then knives, may be okay for you now, but what about 50 years from now.  Do you owe it to your descendants to ensure they have the tools to keep your country as free as it is now?  

We not only defend the right to keep firearms for personal protection, but to protect the freedom of future generation, 50-100- 200 years from now.  It is a sacred obligation of a free people.


----------



## K-man (Feb 26, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I think what our friends in Australia may not understand about Americans, especially those who support the individual right to own firearms, is that *the right is meant for mainly, defence against government tyranny*. Another post by big don points out the unarmed factor in mass murders around the world, you can look that one up. Your country, which does limit your access to guns, and soon swords, and probably then knives, may be okay for you now, but what about 50 years from now. Do you owe it to your descendants to ensure they have the tools to keep your country as free as it is now?
> 
> We not only defend the right to keep firearms for personal protection, but to protect the freedom of future generation, 50-100- 200 years from now. It is a sacred obligation of a free people.


 This is probably the case but the thread has been predominantly about the right to kill some one who comes into your home. 

Swords etc have required licences for years. Your gangs run amok with guns, ours more with knives and machetes. Hence the ban on carrying those items in public places without reason.

Different tack  ...

John Lott's article was factually inaccurate and basically crap. I won't re-post, but many of my references refute his claims and his statistics. eg. "Australia's violent crime rate is also now double America's." Yeah right!



> The range of banned weapons in Australia is truly amazing. Some things such as all the various types of whips can generally be put down to historical reasons, but others such as laser pointers are very difficult to explain. Laser pointers in the US usually have power outputs between 1mW to 5mW, while in Victoria, for instance, nothing above 1mW is legal. Even up to the 5mW level, eye damage may only occur "if viewed for a long time though an optical device (i.e., binoculars)." Laser pointers that are most commonly used in other countries, that pose no real risk to people, are banned in Australia.


Purely because people have been shining them at aircraft at night. 




> Nor do gun laws work any better in Great Britain or Australia. In a recent study for the Fraser Institute, I showed that gun laws in those countries havefailed to stop increases in violent crime and homicides. In contrast, violent crime and homicide rates are plummeting in the United States. Violent crime is dropping even faster in those states that allow citizens to carry concealed handguns.


 Yep and I've got fairies at the bottom of my garden too. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




That guy's hallucinating. :erg:


----------



## Rayban (Feb 27, 2011)

Supra Vijai said:


> Haha we were talking about that in another thread a while back and mate, down here, EVERYTHING is trying to kill you




Don't forget those damned drop bears 



billcihak said:


> Here are some crime statistics from John Lott,  an economist here in the states who has researched the issue of guns and  the reduction or increase in crime rates as people are armed or  disarmed by their governments.
> 
> http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/NationalPost61504.html


 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott



> *Use of Econometrics as  proof of causation*
> 
> Critic Ted Goertzel considered use of econometrics to establish  causal relationships by Lott (and by Lott's critics Levitt, Ayres and  Donohue) to be "fundamentally flawed" junk science.[53]  The National Academy of Sciences panel that reported on several gun  control issues in 2004 looked at Right-To-Carry laws in Chapter 6 and  endorsed neither the Lott & Mustard (1997) level and trend models as  definite proof nor the Ayres & Donohue (2003) hybrid model as  definite refutation of Lott's thesis: the majority of panel concluded  that econometrics could not decide the issue, suggesting instead  alternate research, such as a survey of felons to determine if RTC  changed their behavior.[54]  The criminologist on the NAS panel, James Q. Wilson,  wrote a dissent from the econometricians' conclusion. Wilson noted in  the report that all their estimates on murder rates supported Lott's  conclusion on the effect of RTC on murder.[55]  The Committee responded that "[w]hile it is true that most of the  reported estimates [of the policy on murder rates] are negative, several  are positive and many are statistically insignificant."[56]  They further noted that the full committee, including Wilson, agreed  that there was not convincing evidence that RTC policies had an impact  on other kinds of violent crime.


Yeah, I'd be wary of those statistics.  This guy has much to answer for if he is discredited on wikipedia of all sites.



Violent crime doesn't involve guns all the time.  It has been stated here a few times that we have far more problems with knives and drunken beatings.




billcihak said:


> I think what our friends in Australia may not  understand about Americans, especially those who support the individual  right to own firearms, is that the right is meant for mainly, defence  against government tyranny.  Another post by big don points out the  unarmed factor in mass murders around the world, you can look that one  up.  Your country, which does limit your access to guns, and soon  swords, and probably then knives, may be okay for you now, but what  about 50 years from now.  Do you owe it to your descendants to ensure  they have the tools to keep your country as free as it is now?
> 
> We not only defend the right to keep firearms for personal protection,  but to protect the freedom of future generation, 50-100- 200 years from  now.  It is a sacred obligation of a free people.




We understand that why the freedom exists in America.


"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The  people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong  will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they  misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is  lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what  country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned  from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance?  Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts,  pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century  or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with  the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."- Thomas Jefferson


I am still yet to see an armed rebellion overthrow a corrupt government since the civil war.


Your reasons to own guns in America are irrelevant in Australia.  We did *NOT *mature from colony to nation with a war. We *DID* with a vote in 1904 when we became a Federation.


----------



## billc (Feb 27, 2011)

Well that is because our founding fathers so tired out the British, they didn't have the energy to go after you australians.  Your welcome.


----------



## Rayban (Feb 28, 2011)

Rayban said:


> We *DID* with a vote in 1904 when we became a Federation.



Sorry I meant 1901!!  Stupid fat fingers.


----------



## Supra Vijai (Feb 28, 2011)

Rayban said:


> Sorry I meant 1901!!  Stupid fat fingers.



lol... please mash your keyboard now


----------

