Glad I don't live in Australia

[K-man]

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.

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

Not really. Whether I have a firearm or not would probably make no difference.

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.

Obviously a US problem ... we don't play much baseball.

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.

He committed a criminal offence by having an unregistered firearm. I note they were trying for a 3.5 year penalty for that in NY. And .. I didn't blame the victim. I suppose you know the background, I didn't so I came up with a realistic possibility. Just why was the firearm unregistered?

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.

You might not be but a lot of people around you sure are. Estimated 220,000 million firearms in private hands. http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/1/15.full

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.

Mate, I think you should stop, take a look around and smell the roses. You don't need a gun in Australia and if I felt that that was a requirement to live in any country in the world, I wouldn't want to live there. There would be five hundred reasons why I would or wouldn't want to live in a country. Owning a firearm or being able to legally kill someone if I was threatened would not be in that 500!

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]

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]

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]

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:



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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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....?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

Did this man have a criminal history?

Those are facts. Care to dispute them?

Those are some of the facts ... the article concludes that police are conducting further investigations and the matter goes to court in three weeks.


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.

Relax Bill, we wouldn't want you here if you were going to be scared.

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

See my previous post!

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.

Shooting injures two men in Perth

Updated Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:28pm AEDT


Police are investigating the motive behind the shooting of two men in Bassendean (ABC News: Billy Cooper)

Police say a shooting in the Perth suburb of Bassendean last night was sparked by a home invasion.

It is alleged two men broke into a home in Nurstead Avenue just after 11:00 pm and confronted two men and a woman inside.

The owner was hit over the head before allegedly grabbing a shotgun and discharging it, hitting both home invaders in the arm.

A 33-year-old man, who was shot in one arm, managed to make his way to a home in Kiara to call an ambulance and was taken to Royal Perth Hospital.

Inspector David Picton-King says a second man arrived at the hospital short time later, seeking treatment for a gunshot wound.

"There's no indication that it's bikie-related," he said.

"There's a number of police currently investigating the circumstances to find out how the men became wounded. There's also inquiries underway with the people who lived in the house in Bassendean where the event occurred."

The men's injuries are not considered life threatening and all three are under guard in Royal Perth Hospital.

Detective First Class Constable Nicole Winstone says police are waiting to interview all three men.

"It's always a concern when there's a home invasion of this nature or a burglary of any nature but where there's a weapon involved and someone feels they have to defend their home, it is a concern to police and especially the general public," she said.

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]

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]

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...

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:

a) the pursuit of any lawful employment, duty or activity
b) participation in any lawful sport, recreation or entertainment, and
c) the legitimate collection, display or exhibition of weapon.
​

Lawful excuse does not include for the purpose of self-defence.

That would include underwater spear guns.

Dangerous Articles



Dangerous articles are any item which is either:

• carried with the intention of being used as a weapon, or
• adapted or modified so as to be capable of being used as a weapon.

Dangerous articles can include things that are otherwise lawful. For example, everyday tools, household items or sports equipment etc.
A person must not possess or carry dangerous articles in a public place without lawful excuse.
Lawful excuse includes:

a) the pursuit of any lawful employment, duty or activity
b) participation in any lawful sport, recreation or entertainment
c) the legitimate collection, display or exhibition of the article, and
d) the use of the article for the purpose for which it is designed or intended.
​

Lawful excuse does not include for the purpose of self-defence.

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]

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.


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.

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.