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