Oh, dear Lord, Bill....
Good, glad you agree with that.
Mostly yes. I'll go with it.
Okay, so by "mostly yes", do you mean that you agree that you feel the Australian viewpoint is not relevant? On our own laws in our own country with our own environment and our own culture? Just for clarification here.
Correct that you have pointed this out. And this is where those critical reading skills break down. The Australian viewpoint is what it is. I can't say it's right or wrong for Australia or Australians. I can say it is wrong for me. When it was pointed out that that's because I have an American viewpoint, I can only shrug. Sure I do. So, nu?
The thing we're saying is that you would need to embrace the Australian approach, at least as far as recognising the reasoning for such things as these laws, before you can really have an informed opinion. Other than that there is no rational decision you can make, as you have taken rational thoughts out of your opinion.
I also pointed out that a threat of the sort in the example I gave is universal. It does not matter what country one is in when their life is threatened. Let me try it another way. I presume that people get robbed from time to time in Australia, yes? Perhaps with a knife, since the criminals don't have guns (sorry, being a bit snide there). So, there you are, having a stroll downtown Sydney, and you turn a corner and you're suddenly being robbed by a man with a knife. Now, you may argue that in Australia, criminals with knives are a) rare and b) tend not to cut anyone. Fine, fine, that's as may be. However, when you have the point of that knife pressed into your gut, you are the same as a person anywhere in the world with a knife pressed into his gut. It's universal. Perhaps your criminals are more kindly disposed, perhaps not. But the threat is universal. You are no mind-reader, you don't know what's about to happen. The criminal might not even know what's going to happen. You may live, you may die. Perhaps we can say that the odds of your being stabbed are lower in Australia than they would be in the USA. OK, fair enough. But the threat remains. And odds, no matter how slim, sometimes come up snake eyes. If there is a chance you may be stabbed, the wise man has to take that into account when deciding what to do.
Here we have laws regarding use of force (as do you). Under these laws, if a jury finds that you have reacted beyond what would be reasonable force, you are going to be in a fair amount of trouble. That includes simply deciding that, as you can't read a muggers mind that they may want to kill you, and responding in kind before such a threat is actually manifest. If all they are doing is putting the point of a knife against you, and asking for your money, that may not be taken as a threat of lethal violence. As a result, should you respond in such a way, you could very easily end up in jail for quite a while
One thing I will state here, though, is that reasonable force laws do not prohibit such things, they simply state that the force must be what others would consider reasonable. If they are screaming that they want to stick you for some percieved fault or slight, go for it. But if they are only asking your money, that may not be enough.
Oh, and you may have noticed that my post said that, to use your metaphor, there would not be a spear to be at the point of, implying that a lethal threat is not implicit in this scenario, if you're going to pick people up on what you think is a critical reading issue (for the record, I'd say that you're having more issues with that than the rest here, honestly).
Of course, in the scenario I just described, I'd hand over my wallet and not draw a gun and start blazing away. But that's not the point. The point is that the threat - when it happens, no matter how unlikely - is universal. It does not matter where you are when it happens; threat is threat.
Yes, a threat is a threat. But not every threat is a lethal threat, and not every threat requires a lethal responce. Again, with the critical reading there Bill.
The difference is that there is zero chance the Eskimo will be eaten by a polar bear in Arizona. There is a chance, no matter how small, that a person moving to Australia will be assaulted by people who break into his house. The link I posted shows this to be true. No matter the odds, it does happen. If it happens, it could happen to you. Being prepared for that chance, no matter how small it is, is wiser than pretending it won't happen.
Actually, I used Barbados, but Arizona works well too. You're right that the Eskimo won't need to protect himself against polar bears there, but that wasn't really my point either. My point was that in moving from one location to another means you need to understand what the dangers in a new environment are as compared to a previous one. The wildlife dangers in the Arctic are different, and require different responces from the dangers in Arizona, or Barbados, or anywhere else.
And the link you provided, one more time, did not present any evidence that there are assaults with lethal intent (note: I am not saying there aren't any, just that that link is not evidence of it). So using this story to support that claim doesn't hold up.
We buy insurance not because something is likely to happen, but in the unlikely even that it does happen. We know that people get into accidents, have health problems, and die unexpectedly, even though the chances are low it will happen to us at a particular time. So we buy insurance as a precaution. Owning a gun for self-defense and knowing how and when to use it is a precaution. I don't stop buying insurance because I move from a high accident rate location to a low accident rate location. If I was unable to buy accident insurance, I'd be rather unwilling to live there.
This is actually not a good similie either, Bill. But it's a big point, and one that hasn't come up yet as to our reasons, so I'm going to cover it at the end of this.
Here's the difference. I'm not panicking, nor suggesting everyone go out hunting criminals.
Panicking? No, your not. But you are acting in a way that doesn't fit with the viewpoint you're presenting, by applying a fear-based mentality where it doesn't exist and isn't appropriate.
In the American Southwest, many who go out in the desert or the mountains take along snake pistols. How often do they need them? Not often. Usually easier to avoid the snake. But it's possible to have a need to shoot a snake. No harm if one goes out and does NOT shoot a snake. Even if they NEVER shoot a snake. It's there if they need it. If you need it and do not have it, well, then you have a problem.
You know, I'd suggest the odds of coming across a snake is a little higher than an armed mugger out there, yeah? Add to that the snake not making a conscious threat, but acting on instict relative to the type of animal it is, and this is a very different reason to own and carry a firearm. And, for the record, perfectly legal as a reason to own one here, if you live in an area where that is a potential circumstance. Not sure how it supports your position, then.
It's all that is necessary to prove that no matter how slim the odds, the odds sometimes require the predicted even to occur. If I have a one-in-a-million chance of winning some lottery, then eventually I may win. But another way of putting it is that every so often, someone does win. The having-my-house-broken-into lottery and the being-assaulted-in-my-house lottery are not lotteries I want to win. The chances are lower of it happening in Australia, but it *does* happen. The example I quoted just happened to be in the news that day.
The problem here is that you are attributing details and values to this single account that are not present. As a result, nothing is proven by it. House break-in's here occur almost exclusively when people aren't home. Now, you're going to say that my phrase "almost" there shows that it does happen, but what I mean by that is to allow for the possibility, which is not the same as saying that it is a reason to change the laws. Once again, more reasons to follow.
Some seem to equate low-odds with 'it does not happen'. Low odds just mean it seldom happens. And that's cold comfort to the person to whom it happens.
No, that's not where I'm coming from. I recognise that low odds means seldom happening, rather than never happening. But you need to understand that relative risk needs to come up as well (that's what we'll deal with soon).
It does at the point of the knife blade. If I get moved to Australia and one fine day I turn a corner in Sydney and there is a man pressing a knife blade into my gut, shall I inform him that the chances of his doing this are very low in Australia, so it's not really happening?
That's an alarmist viewpoint, and not an intelligent one. You know that that's not the case. For instance, I could point out that in most situations, if they have a knife point pressed into your gut, they are threatening you in order to extort money or something similar, not kill you. If they're wanting to kill you, you won't feel or see the knife first. And in both cases, if you don't have your gun out already, you won't get it out in time either. I mean, what are you going to do, ask them to wait for you to get out your equaliser?
It rains everywhere. Even places where the chances of rainfall are low. If you stand somewhere long enough, you will get wet.
Wonderful argument.... so what you're saying is that if you stay in the one house all your life, you will have it invaded, and someone will try to kill you? Definately? Really? This argument has no merit to your position, Bill.
I understand odds, and it appears you do not. A small chance means it happens less frequently. But it still happens. And if you are the person it is happening to, you won't be comforted by the fact that it's rare.
Now, I wouldn't say that I don't understand odds, it seems you aren't understanding relative risk. In simple terms, bad things happen, no-one is prepared for everything, and no-one is comforted by the odds against it happening when it does. Again, this argument has no merit here.
Of course, and you're welcome to it. A threat, however, is a threat. That's universal. It may be rare to be punched in the nose in Australia compared to being punched in the nose in the USA, but it hurts the same if it does happen to you. What you appear to be saying is that the lower odds mean you won't be punched in the nose. I feel that's a mistaken understanding of the odds.
... And being punched in the nose is related to needing to own a gun for self defence how exactly? Again, a threat is a threat, but not all threats are the same.
The basic premise is this. When betting for gain, betting the odds is a sucker's bet. For example, buying a lottery ticket (and yes, I do buy lottery tickets, but I know it's a sucker's bet). When betting against loss, betting the odds is a wise strategy. We know our home probably won't burn down, but we buy fire insurance anyway. If house fires are more rare in Australia than the USA, then I guess insurance would be cheaper; but I'd still buy it. A gun for self-defense is insurance of a sort. It's insurance I insist upon. I'm not sure what else I can say.
Okay, now we'll get to one of the main reasons the "insurance" argument, the "threat with a knife in order to extort money", and the "punch to the nose" argument fails completely. It's all about relative risk.
What that means is that having a gun around the house is a risk. Having it to go hunting lowers the risk, as there is no need to have the gun and ammunition kept together (which by law can't happen here), or out of a locked storage space (typically a safe - again, a legal requirement here). Having it for home defence would mean it would need to be accessible and loaded (I believe this was mentioned earlier by yourself). Problem is, of course, that once there is a loaded, accessible gun in the house, the risk of shooting and injuring or killing someone leaps up enormously. When that risk is applied against the potential need for use, the odds of needing it are not good enough to justify having a gun for such a reason in this country.
It's not about whether or not home invasions happen, it's about relative risk against the likelihood of accidental injury, even of home invaders if they are not intending homicide (say, just wanting to burgle, and not realising you're home). And in that light, there is no support for allowing potential tragedy to our populace. Really, this is what we mean when we say you really do need to understand the Australian take on things. There are far more factors than just whether or not there are very rare occasions of people invading other's homes.
