Glad I don't live in Australia

[wayneshin]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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:

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” – Japanese Admiral Yamamoto, 1941

“Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA — ordinary citizens don’t need guns, as their having guns doesn’t serve the state.” – 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]

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]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mattocks
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.