Well, racism is wrong where ever it happens and I hope we are moving to end that sort of discrimination or abuse. I can accept that as a reason for not wanting to live here based on your personal experience. :asian:
Glad I don't live in Australia
- Thread starter Bill Mattocks
- Start date
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Hmm, tried to post this reply yesterday, and lost it, let's see if it works this time...
Really? For one thing, I don't think anyone here has suggested that burglars are nothing to be scared of, all of the people that I've known who have had their houses broken into have been quite scared for quite a while afterwards...
Actually, what we are talking about here is a realistic awareness of the realities of the environment. And, for us, that means that burglars opt to break into houses when there's no one home (for the record, that's the way it has gone down in each instance that anyone I know has had it happen). And surely a realistic awareness is something that should be encouraged, rather than giving way to paranoia?
Now, that was not the point of my post there. The point was more that recognising when weaponry are seen to be a reasonable consideration becomes part of the equation, and when they aren't required (by the circumstances surrounding you), then they aren't required. Our lifestyle, criminal culture, environment, and so on do not require guns as a means of self defence. And here I am speaking about the overall general populace and culture, which is the basis of information that laws are made from and for, rather than potential single occurances.
But to address your question, you're really asking the wrong one there. What you should ask is what would be required for us to feel that having firearms as self defence weapons. And the answer to that is when the relative risk is outweighed by the potential benefits of such usage. And at present, it doesn't. If that were to change, and guns suddenly became commonplace in Australia, then the laws would change as well. But that is not the present case.
That, frankly, is a nothing argument.
To begin with, this entire thread is about Bill's statement that he would not want to live here (or anywhere else, it seems) as we do not allow the ownership of firearms for the purpose of self defence. Nothing to do with an American sense of "individual freedoms", although Bill did bring that up later. It is simply to do with our laws not allowing guns for self defence.
Now, I'm going to make a point that has been made a number of times already, but seems to be glossed over a fair bit. Here, in this country, Australia, the Great Southern Land, Down Under, most adults can legally own firearms. Really, you can. All you need is a licence to own them. So there is no "freedom" being infringed by prohibitting anyone from owning guns, okay? Just the reasons that we allow you to own such a weapon. And we don't allow guns for the express purpose of shooting people (and yes, that is the basic case when owning it for self defence, it may not be to puposefully shoot someone, but it is to use against another human being, bad guy or not). Really, we're not that fond of people shooting each other over here. So if you have another (legitimate) reason to own it, ranging from owning a farm, to simply enjoying shooting on the range, that's fine. But, for safety, you will need to comply with basic requirements for the storage of the weapon and ammunition (keeping them seperate), as well as (in the case of shooting on a firing range) sticking to established routes to and from the range itself.
These requirements are in place for a simple reason; they keep people safe. Now, this is not the same as a "nanny state", as that would be a state which removes all decisions from you. That is not the case here. These are basic requirements for the overall safety, and should be looked at the same way as ensuring that all cars have airbags, seatbelts, and reverse lights. Is that an infringement of the car manufacturers' freedoms? Is needing to wear a seatbelt an infringement and instigation of a "nanny state"? If you think it is, then maybe you need to look a little more realistically at exactly what a government is supposed to do.
And owning a gun as an expression of your freedom to own a gun is fine, remember, we have the same freedom to own one here as well, we just frown on the reason for owning one being the use on other people. But for that statement to actually be true, then the reverse must, by necessity, also be true. In other words, not owning a gun is just as much an expression of that same freedom. But the wording here by Bill and yourself seems to imply that if you don't own a gun, you aren't free (?). That is not freedom, it's barely a thought process.
The idea of prefering to live in a country with the risk of violent assault with a firearm (gun violence) rather than live in a country which does not have such a risk, and therefore doesn't have the need for it's populace to own such weapons, as the lack of requirement seems to equate to a lack of freedom frankly sounds rather delusional to me. There is no lack of freedom here, and yet, there is no gun culture either.
Hey, here's a fun fact. Did you know that Australia is one of the only countries in the "developed world" that doesn't have something akin to a Bill of Rights (in fact, I think it's the only one)? Does that mean that we're not as free as those that have them? Actually, we prefer to think quite the opposite.... we're aware of our intrinsic rights and freedoms that they have no need to be written down and codified. The very fact that you may need to write down what your "freedoms" are implies to me that you actually have far fewer than you may think, and need them penned in and defined. Basically, if you need someone to tell you what your freedoms and rights are, in case someone infringes them, then you probably didn't have them in the first place. We haven't found cause to hem ours in like that.
That is far from the "ultimate power" for government. And again, the government here are not "disarming" the populace by not allowing guns for the purpose of shooting people, by the way.
America has many many immense strengths, that have taken it far beyond it's beginnings as a colony for persecuted religious peoples. But those strengths are also the source of some rather large weaknesses as well. This false sense of "personal freedoms", both the lack and holding of them, would be one of them.
Elder, I'm sorry that that has been your experience. While I have seen such racism here (certainly not about to deny that it exists), it is more of a rare thing that I have seen. Should you visit here again, hopefully your experience will be far more positive.
Really? For one thing, I don't think anyone here has suggested that burglars are nothing to be scared of, all of the people that I've known who have had their houses broken into have been quite scared for quite a while afterwards...
Actually, what we are talking about here is a realistic awareness of the realities of the environment. And, for us, that means that burglars opt to break into houses when there's no one home (for the record, that's the way it has gone down in each instance that anyone I know has had it happen). And surely a realistic awareness is something that should be encouraged, rather than giving way to paranoia?
Now, that was not the point of my post there. The point was more that recognising when weaponry are seen to be a reasonable consideration becomes part of the equation, and when they aren't required (by the circumstances surrounding you), then they aren't required. Our lifestyle, criminal culture, environment, and so on do not require guns as a means of self defence. And here I am speaking about the overall general populace and culture, which is the basis of information that laws are made from and for, rather than potential single occurances.
But to address your question, you're really asking the wrong one there. What you should ask is what would be required for us to feel that having firearms as self defence weapons. And the answer to that is when the relative risk is outweighed by the potential benefits of such usage. And at present, it doesn't. If that were to change, and guns suddenly became commonplace in Australia, then the laws would change as well. But that is not the present case.
That, frankly, is a nothing argument.
To begin with, this entire thread is about Bill's statement that he would not want to live here (or anywhere else, it seems) as we do not allow the ownership of firearms for the purpose of self defence. Nothing to do with an American sense of "individual freedoms", although Bill did bring that up later. It is simply to do with our laws not allowing guns for self defence.
Now, I'm going to make a point that has been made a number of times already, but seems to be glossed over a fair bit. Here, in this country, Australia, the Great Southern Land, Down Under, most adults can legally own firearms. Really, you can. All you need is a licence to own them. So there is no "freedom" being infringed by prohibitting anyone from owning guns, okay? Just the reasons that we allow you to own such a weapon. And we don't allow guns for the express purpose of shooting people (and yes, that is the basic case when owning it for self defence, it may not be to puposefully shoot someone, but it is to use against another human being, bad guy or not). Really, we're not that fond of people shooting each other over here. So if you have another (legitimate) reason to own it, ranging from owning a farm, to simply enjoying shooting on the range, that's fine. But, for safety, you will need to comply with basic requirements for the storage of the weapon and ammunition (keeping them seperate), as well as (in the case of shooting on a firing range) sticking to established routes to and from the range itself.
These requirements are in place for a simple reason; they keep people safe. Now, this is not the same as a "nanny state", as that would be a state which removes all decisions from you. That is not the case here. These are basic requirements for the overall safety, and should be looked at the same way as ensuring that all cars have airbags, seatbelts, and reverse lights. Is that an infringement of the car manufacturers' freedoms? Is needing to wear a seatbelt an infringement and instigation of a "nanny state"? If you think it is, then maybe you need to look a little more realistically at exactly what a government is supposed to do.
And owning a gun as an expression of your freedom to own a gun is fine, remember, we have the same freedom to own one here as well, we just frown on the reason for owning one being the use on other people. But for that statement to actually be true, then the reverse must, by necessity, also be true. In other words, not owning a gun is just as much an expression of that same freedom. But the wording here by Bill and yourself seems to imply that if you don't own a gun, you aren't free (?). That is not freedom, it's barely a thought process.
The idea of prefering to live in a country with the risk of violent assault with a firearm (gun violence) rather than live in a country which does not have such a risk, and therefore doesn't have the need for it's populace to own such weapons, as the lack of requirement seems to equate to a lack of freedom frankly sounds rather delusional to me. There is no lack of freedom here, and yet, there is no gun culture either.
Hey, here's a fun fact. Did you know that Australia is one of the only countries in the "developed world" that doesn't have something akin to a Bill of Rights (in fact, I think it's the only one)? Does that mean that we're not as free as those that have them? Actually, we prefer to think quite the opposite.... we're aware of our intrinsic rights and freedoms that they have no need to be written down and codified. The very fact that you may need to write down what your "freedoms" are implies to me that you actually have far fewer than you may think, and need them penned in and defined. Basically, if you need someone to tell you what your freedoms and rights are, in case someone infringes them, then you probably didn't have them in the first place. We haven't found cause to hem ours in like that.
That is far from the "ultimate power" for government. And again, the government here are not "disarming" the populace by not allowing guns for the purpose of shooting people, by the way.
America has many many immense strengths, that have taken it far beyond it's beginnings as a colony for persecuted religious peoples. But those strengths are also the source of some rather large weaknesses as well. This false sense of "personal freedoms", both the lack and holding of them, would be one of them.
Elder, I'm sorry that that has been your experience. While I have seen such racism here (certainly not about to deny that it exists), it is more of a rare thing that I have seen. Should you visit here again, hopefully your experience will be far more positive.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
Here, people break into houses with people at home-that's the reality.....and, as I've posted, while a rarity, the same is true in Australia.
Again, you seem to think that guns are only an appropriate response when the assailants are armed with guns-this isn't true: if they're armed with knives, machetes, baseball bats, hammers, screwdrivers, or there are simply more than one of them, in this country deadly force is an appropriate level of response.........just as it is when they break into your house, and you're home.
And this is for the Canadians as well: there is nothing in these requirements that would keep me from rapidly arming myself and shooting an intruder. Maybe not as rapidly as simply reaching, but I could open two of these:
Seen here, and a bunch of other places....and not too expensive, either.
I'd argue that they don't.
My experience was pretty positive-and I've been in this skin all my life, and traveled all over the world: racism isn't rare anywhere.
Supra Vijai
Black Belt
Jumping into this thread late I know but it still seems to be going and I saw a relevant article in a local paper last night on my way home from work. Unfortunately the paper doesn't have an online version and I don't have the hard copy in front of me so I can't quote it verbatim but basically, 2 men broke into a house in the Melbourne suburb of Roxburgh Park 2 nights ago with an unknown object and scared the occupant who was in his living room before burgling the place. The article did not mention any injury to the homeowner apart from psychological trauma. Like Chris Parker and Rayban I live in Melbourne and in fact am only about a half hour drive away from the suburb in question. However I'm not fazed by the report or even worried. Roxburgh Park and it's surrounding suburbs have a reputation for attracting some of the criminal element mentioned in previous posts so it's not a huge shock either.
Nor am I going to run off to source firearms in case my house gets invaded. I've got my dog in the backyard, my neighbours keep an eye on my place if I'm not home as I do for them and my "weapons" (wooden training gear from MA) are in the house either near my bed or at hand because that's just where I put them down last. If push comes to shove and I have to use my MA training I'd be fine with having a hanbo at hand as we train to break bones and stop opponents in armor. I'd also be able to justify that a whole lot easier if I had to. There's no point in me stressing about the attacker having a gun or my inability to own one because statistically speaking it's such a low percentage that it's not a day to day concern over here.
I mentioned this thread to one of my female friends and her first reaction was "what if you're elderly, disabled or a WOMAN?' Then we'll scream and run, scratch their eyes out or bash their head in with a lamp. Maybe, just maybe, we'll stab them with that knife we were using to slice meat a moment ago." Discounting the natural survival instinct of someone just because of their lack of training can be a serious mistake. In different contexts there are stories of people performing superhuman feats of strength and speed under adrenaline when they thought their life was in danger or even if it's not.... In recent news there was a little old lady in the UK who fended off a gang of would be jewel thiefs wielding crowbars using just her handbag before chasing them down the street. That just shows a handbag in the hands of a sweet nana going shopping can be just as effective as a gun against a group of thugs with crowbars. Something to think about...
Nor am I going to run off to source firearms in case my house gets invaded. I've got my dog in the backyard, my neighbours keep an eye on my place if I'm not home as I do for them and my "weapons" (wooden training gear from MA) are in the house either near my bed or at hand because that's just where I put them down last. If push comes to shove and I have to use my MA training I'd be fine with having a hanbo at hand as we train to break bones and stop opponents in armor. I'd also be able to justify that a whole lot easier if I had to. There's no point in me stressing about the attacker having a gun or my inability to own one because statistically speaking it's such a low percentage that it's not a day to day concern over here.
I mentioned this thread to one of my female friends and her first reaction was "what if you're elderly, disabled or a WOMAN?' Then we'll scream and run, scratch their eyes out or bash their head in with a lamp. Maybe, just maybe, we'll stab them with that knife we were using to slice meat a moment ago." Discounting the natural survival instinct of someone just because of their lack of training can be a serious mistake. In different contexts there are stories of people performing superhuman feats of strength and speed under adrenaline when they thought their life was in danger or even if it's not.... In recent news there was a little old lady in the UK who fended off a gang of would be jewel thiefs wielding crowbars using just her handbag before chasing them down the street. That just shows a handbag in the hands of a sweet nana going shopping can be just as effective as a gun against a group of thugs with crowbars. Something to think about...
I'm glad I don't live in Australia because of Jack Jumper ants and Funnel web spiders. That is the spider down there that can bite through a toe nail isn't it?
Jack jumpers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35ZLJV4YYjQ&feature=fvst Funnel web spider (yikes!!!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35ZLJV4YYjQ&feature=fvst Funnel web spider (yikes!!!)
Last edited by a moderator:
Supra Vijai
Black Belt
Haha we were talking about that in another thread a while back and mate, down here, EVERYTHING is trying to kill you
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
And all sorts of snakes....and saltwater crocs......and scary, scary aquatic life, like the greater hairless windsufer:
:lfao:
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks to Greenpeace, this is one that got away from the Japanese, in the Southern Ocean just last month.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
I've already stated that if we had the same violent criminal culture that the US has, we'd probably have a different set of laws in place. But we don't. So any comment on what happens in the US is not really relevant to a discussion of Australian laws. Should the rare occurances increase, things may change, until then, rare just isn't enough to convince us that raising the risk of accidental injury or death to friends and family members by having a loaded gun in a house is a good thing.
No, that's really not the case at all. In fact, the only time I believe I've talked about a gun to go against firearm wielding bandits is when that was the scenario put forth by others. I completely agree that a lethal weapon is a lethal weapon, whether due to impact, edge, puncture, or projectile. The thing is, though, a baseball bat is unlikely to "accidentally go off" and kill or injure. And again, what happens in the US is no influence on Australian society and laws in this regard.
And this is for the Canadians as well: there is nothing in these requirements that would keep me from rapidly arming myself and shooting an intruder. Maybe not as rapidly as simply reaching, but I could open two of these:
Seen here, and a bunch of other places....and not too expensive, either.
Actually, our laws on how the firearm and ammunition are stored dictate that there needs to be a distance between the two, so you can't just reach from one to another (helps limit crimes of passion that way, I suppose, as well as reducing the risk even further of both being accidentally discovered and obtained by someone who shouldn't have them. I mean, if we go back to the Columbine School shooting, the two boys stole the guns and ammo from one of their grandfathers, from memory, yeah? This helps avoid such things). A number of people that I know that own pistols for recreational shooting (at a firing range) actually have both stored completely seperate to their property, at a storage facitlity that may be a few suburbs away. That way there's no risk of their kids discovering them at all.
I think you're thinking about the idea of keeping people safe from a completely different angle. I'm talking about stopping people accidentally killing or injuring each other, you're talking about keeping people safe from outside threats by having the weapon at hand. That may show the different mindsets we have as countries here.
Very true and sad at the same time. And I'm glad that your overall experience was positive here.
Now, while the snakes are very pretty, the crocs are rather majestic, the funnel webs are wonderously designed, and the ants are very impressive in their efficacy, I really have no argument against the dreaded Greater Hairless Windsurfer.... even I'm not keen on encountering that without some kind of heavy club-like implement!
Here are some crime statistics from John Lott, an economist here in the states who has researched the issue of guns and the reduction or increase in crime rates as people are armed or disarmed by their governments.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/NationalPost61504.html
The same logic applies overseas: With violent crime and gun crime soaring in the United Kingdom, where handguns are already banned, the British government is banning imitation guns. And in Australia, state governments are banning ceremonial swords.
Yet, the laws in Australia, Britain and Canada were adopted under what gun control advocates would argue were ideal conditions. All three countries adopted laws that applied to the entire country. Australia and Britain are surrounded by water, and thus do not have the easy smuggling problem that Canada claims with regard to the United States. The new attempts to ban toys or cast blame on the United States, reek of desperation.
Crime did not fall in England after handguns were banned in 1997. Quite the contrary, crime rose sharply. In May, the British government reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the last four years. Serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged 29% higher than 1996; robbery was 24% higher; murders 27% higher. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the armed robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels. The violent crime rate in England is now double that in the United States. Australia saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 gun control measures banned most firearms. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed than they did the year before the law went into effect. Murder and manslaughter rates remained unchanged, but armed robbery rates increased 74%, aggravated assaults by 32%. Australia's violent crime rate is also now double America's. In contrast, the United States took the opposite approach and made it easier for individuals to carry guns. Thirty-seven of the 50 states now have right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a criminal background check. Violent crime in the United States has fallen much faster than in Canada, and violent crime has fallen even faster inright-to-carry states than for the nation as a whole. The states with the fastest growth in gun ownership have also experienced the biggest drops in violent crime rates.
Another article on the Australian brand of gun control and its effectiveness:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/NationalPost61504.html
The same logic applies overseas: With violent crime and gun crime soaring in the United Kingdom, where handguns are already banned, the British government is banning imitation guns. And in Australia, state governments are banning ceremonial swords.
Yet, the laws in Australia, Britain and Canada were adopted under what gun control advocates would argue were ideal conditions. All three countries adopted laws that applied to the entire country. Australia and Britain are surrounded by water, and thus do not have the easy smuggling problem that Canada claims with regard to the United States. The new attempts to ban toys or cast blame on the United States, reek of desperation.
Crime did not fall in England after handguns were banned in 1997. Quite the contrary, crime rose sharply. In May, the British government reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the last four years. Serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged 29% higher than 1996; robbery was 24% higher; murders 27% higher. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the armed robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels. The violent crime rate in England is now double that in the United States. Australia saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 gun control measures banned most firearms. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed than they did the year before the law went into effect. Murder and manslaughter rates remained unchanged, but armed robbery rates increased 74%, aggravated assaults by 32%. Australia's violent crime rate is also now double America's. In contrast, the United States took the opposite approach and made it easier for individuals to carry guns. Thirty-seven of the 50 states now have right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a criminal background check. Violent crime in the United States has fallen much faster than in Canada, and violent crime has fallen even faster inright-to-carry states than for the nation as a whole. The states with the fastest growth in gun ownership have also experienced the biggest drops in violent crime rates.
Another article on the Australian brand of gun control and its effectiveness:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
. But 12 years on, new research suggests the government response to Port Arthur was a waste of public money and has made no difference to the country's gun-related death rates.
But by pulling back and looking purely at the statistics, the answer "is there in black and white," she says. "The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html#ixzz1F4jkxfRA
But by pulling back and looking purely at the statistics, the answer "is there in black and white," she says. "The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html#ixzz1F4jkxfRA
I think what our friends in Australia may not understand about Americans, especially those who support the individual right to own firearms, is that the right is meant for mainly, defence against government tyranny. Another post by big don points out the unarmed factor in mass murders around the world, you can look that one up. Your country, which does limit your access to guns, and soon swords, and probably then knives, may be okay for you now, but what about 50 years from now. Do you owe it to your descendants to ensure they have the tools to keep your country as free as it is now?
We not only defend the right to keep firearms for personal protection, but to protect the freedom of future generation, 50-100- 200 years from now. It is a sacred obligation of a free people.
We not only defend the right to keep firearms for personal protection, but to protect the freedom of future generation, 50-100- 200 years from now. It is a sacred obligation of a free people.
This is probably the case but the thread has been predominantly about the right to kill some one who comes into your home.
Swords etc have required licences for years. Your gangs run amok with guns, ours more with knives and machetes. Hence the ban on carrying those items in public places without reason.
Different tack ...
John Lott's article was factually inaccurate and basically crap. I won't re-post, but many of my references refute his claims and his statistics. eg. "Australia's violent crime rate is also now double America's." Yeah right!
Purely because people have been shining them at aircraft at night.
Yep and I've got fairies at the bottom of my garden too.
That guy's hallucinating. :erg:
Rayban
Green Belt
Haha we were talking about that in another thread a while back and mate, down here, EVERYTHING is trying to kill you
Don't forget those damned drop bears
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott
Yeah, I'd be wary of those statistics. This guy has much to answer for if he is discredited on wikipedia of all sites.
Violent crime doesn't involve guns all the time. It has been stated here a few times that we have far more problems with knives and drunken beatings.
We understand that why the freedom exists in America.
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."- Thomas Jefferson
I am still yet to see an armed rebellion overthrow a corrupt government since the civil war.
Your reasons to own guns in America are irrelevant in Australia. We did NOT mature from colony to nation with a war. We DID with a vote in 1904 when we became a Federation.
Well that is because our founding fathers so tired out the British, they didn't have the energy to go after you australians. Your welcome.
Rayban
Green Belt
Sorry I meant 1901!! Stupid fat fingers.
