Glad I don't live in Australia

[Bill Mattocks]

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.

I'm sure they don't. The point is not what their goal is. The point is that I can't know what their goal is until they've attempted it, which I'm not going to do. It is both reasonable and prudent to make an assumption which starts from known facts, which is that they have broken in to my house and I am under assault.

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.

Let's revisit my initial post:

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.

So I started out by describing that I have been to Australia and I think it's wonderful. Provocative?

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/west...-1226007160365

Quote:
A HOME owner who shot two intruders at his house in Bassendean on Monday night has been charged with possession of an unlicensed firearm and possession of unlicensed ammunition.
And it wasn't really a question of whether or not it was self-defense; it pretty clearly was...

Quote:
Police will allege that two men, aged 30 and 31, broke into the house in Nurstead Avenue in Bassendean about 11pm on Monday night.

The 40-year-old resident of house, who was assaulted with an unknown object by one of the men, armed himself with a shotgun before shooting the two men.
Yeah, I'd be shooting at them also. But a) we don't have any registration of shotguns here, and b) I wouldn't register if we did, and c) under no circumstances am I prohibited from defending myself with deadly force after someone breaks into my home and attacks me. I would not want to live in the country that had a, b, or c as offenses.

Please point out to me the part where I said that Australia's laws were bad, attacked Australia, or otherwise suggested that the world should change to meet my requirements.

It was pointed out to me that the victim wasn't arrested for using the shotgun, but rather for not registering it. I accept that as a valid point, but it doesn't change my opinion about living there, either.

Since then, I have pretty much spent my time refuting arguments about things I did not say, nor did I insinuate. The one criticism I have leveled is that a lot of people in this thread seem to lack critical reading skills. That is, if they read in my statement an attack on Australia, that's on them; I never attacked Australia.

 

[Rayban]

Please point out to me the part where I said that Australia's laws were bad, attacked Australia, or otherwise suggested that the world should change to meet my requirements.

It was pointed out to me that the victim wasn't arrested for using the shotgun, but rather for not registering it. I accept that as a valid point, but it doesn't change my opinion about living there, either.

Since then, I have pretty much spent my time refuting arguments about things I did not say, nor did I insinuate. The one criticism I have leveled is that a lot of people in this thread seem to lack critical reading skills. That is, if they read in my statement an attack on Australia, that's on them; I never attacked Australia.

Speaking of critical reading, I have not stated anywhere or insinuated that "you are attacking Australian values and laws". My point is very simple.

If you live here there is no need to own a firearm. And if you believe you "need", not want one to live here, you are misguided. If you want one because it is a hobby, you get it registered and obey the storage and use laws.

From this point (that is my opinion) it appears I have upset you. I am not trying to infringe on your freedom to own and use guns in your own country. I am telling you how it is here.

You started a thread with an obviously loaded title and expressed an opinion. Then won't accept the opinions of those who actually live here.

I have tried not to offend and I respect your opinion and your choices. They are yours to make. So please don't get upset when others voice theirs.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I have tried not to offend and I respect your opinion and your choices. They are yours to make. So please don't get upset when others voice theirs.

I'm not upset. It takes considerably more than that. I speak directly, and sometimes people mistake that for anger.

 

[K-man]

Please point out to me the part where I said that Australia's laws were bad, attacked Australia, or otherwise suggested that the world should change to meet my requirements.

It was pointed out to me that the victim wasn't arrested for using the shotgun, but rather for not registering it. I accept that as a valid point, but it doesn't change my opinion about living there, either.

Since then, I have pretty much spent my time refuting arguments about things I did not say, nor did I insinuate. The one criticism I have leveled is that a lot of people in this thread seem to lack critical reading skills. That is, if they read in my statement an attack on Australia, that's on them; I never attacked Australia.

Bill, you say that you have responded to all questions but ignored mine. I asked you what other country would you live in with your criteria. Total silence. I asked you if guns in schools would stop school shooting. Total silence. I told you that you didn't have all the facts, in the case. Total silence. You said the man was arrested for having an unregistered firearm. He wasn't, yet you still assert he was. He was placed under police guard in hospital because he shot two people in unknown circumstances. I told you that the trial wasn't until next month. Doesn't matter .. guilty until proven innocent. On the facts as stated in the article this guy has history. What that history is hasn't been released .. yet. The press release stated at the end that police investigations were continuing. Where are your critical reading skills?

Please point out to me the part where I said that Australia's laws were bad, attacked Australia, or otherwise suggested that the world should change to meet my requirements.

Yeah, I'd be shooting at them also. But a) we don't have any registration of shotguns here, and b) I wouldn't register if we did, and c) under no circumstances am I prohibited from defending myself with deadly force after someone breaks into my home and attacks me. I would not want to live in the country that had a, b, or c as offenses.

Australian law ... you can't shoot people ... it's against OUR law. Your response; "I'd be shooting them also."
Australian law ... you must register firearms ... it's OUR law. Your response; "We don't have to register shotguns here. I wouldn't register if we did"
Not only are you saying you don't like our law, you are actually saying you would defy American law if it changed.
Australian law ... you CAN defend yourself or your family (NOT property) with deadly force but if you elect to do so you will have to justify those actions in court. You are saying you have a right to kill someone whether they pose a threat or not.

If "I would not want to live in the country that had a, b, or c as offenses." is not criticism of our law, I can't imagine what is.

It was pointed out to me that the victim wasn't arrested for using the shotgun, but rather for not registering it. I accept that as a valid point, but it doesn't change my opinion about living there, either.

He wasn't arrested for having an unregistered firearm. He was charged with having an unregistered firearm. He was arrested or put under armed guard because he shot two people under questionable cicumstances. The police had no discretion.

But, Bill, that's not the worst. Despite all the Australians giving you the same story, you assert that you know better. I would have thought that a logical person would say, well if what you say is correct, I might have been wrong, but no, you just keep digging in deeper and deeper.

As one of the other posters has said, you normally provide reasoned and well thought out posts but on this thread you really are way off the pace ... IMHO of course.

 

[mook jong man]

Look , it's ok if Bill says he doesn't want to live in Australia.

These blokes said they'll have Bill's spot if he doesn't want it.

 

[Chris Parker]

Bill, rather than take up half a page going through everything from the last two or three pages here, I'm going to do a sum up of both sides here, then you can correct it as you see fit, okay?

Your argument is simple. You feel that a gun is the best possible item to have in your home for self defence purposes. You then learnt that in Australia, as in many (read: most) other places, having a firearm for the express purposes of self defence is against the law (as in not accepted as a reasonable cause to possess said firearm). For this reason you have decided that you would not live in Australia.

You have backed this up by using a single occurance in which a shotgun was used, without any actual reference in the article as to whether or not it was required (as in reasonable force.... and yes, you'll come back with "if someone breaks into my house I'm going to assume that they mean to kill me or severely injure me, so I'll respond with deadly force", and that is not actually a real argument here, for reasons that I"ll get into in a moment), and argued that of course you are speaking from an American viewpoint, as well as saying that the Australian environment is not part of the equation.

From our side, however, we have pointed out over and over again that the laws here are a reflection of our society, and that the purchase of firearms for self defence is not legal due to the lack of need (based on the society and environment we have here) that is present. We have also repeatedly pointed out that the Australian environment and situation is vital to this discussion, as the laws are a reflection of this country, not the US.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that you cannot simply transport a mentality of one country to the laws of another. If you are looking at the laws here, you have to look at the environment that they apply to, otherwise you have no basis to make the argument. It really is like the Eskimo not wanting to move somewhere that doesn't allow him protection against polar bears. He's too fixated on the issues of his present location to see what the realities are in his new one.

You have used a single occurance to justify this, and mentioned (when we bring up the rarity of this event) the rarity of being struck by lightening. You then state that we might as well be playing golf in a thunderstorm, for the relative risk, but again, that's not really an argument at all. Deliberately putting yourself in a situation which increases the chance of injury or death (for the record, it's 1 in 10 people hit by lightening that actually die, so this isn't necessarily fatal either) is very different to not having something which is not needed for anything other than the most rare of situations. But, so you know, even without playing golf in a thunderstorm, I'd suggest that being struck by lightening is a higher likelihood here. So is being eaten by a shark, so you know.

This honestly reminds me of a Simpsons episode, which features a bear wandering into the town at the beginning of the episode. This involves the township panicking, even though the bear did little more than rumage through a few trash bins. The township demanded action, and the mayor established a "Bear Patrol", guarding against non-existant bear attacks. Line of the episode? (Mayor Quimby) "Are these morons getting stupider, or just louder?" (Mayor's Aide) "Stupider, sir."

This is like your take here. It is a single occurance, which you have taken without it's context, and applied a response to it that is out of whack with the realities of the situation. Your argument of "it happened!" has as much weight as K-Man's example of school shootings being a reason to not send kids to school in the US (although it may be said that school shootings actually seem to be a more regular occurance....). It may also be noted that your constant assersion that "it happened!" isn't even strictly true based purely on the accounts given so far. All we have is that someone shot intruders, not that their life was being threatened, or anything similar that you have added to it.

To break it down, if you are talking about Australian laws, then you are talking about the laws as applied within an Australian context, in an Australian environment, in Australian situations. End of story there. If you were to move here (let's say it's not your choice, you get shifted for your career, or something similar), applying American mentalities and thought processes to what is then a foreign environment (to those thought processes) simply doesn't work.

And finally, your assertion that "it's all the same at the point of a spear" is really not what we were saying. What we are saying is that there is not going to be a spear for you to be at the point of (and no, that's not denial of the realities of danger and assault with deadly weapons, it's a recognition of our environment and how that pertains to his discussion). Different cultures, different countries, different mentalities, different environments all add up to different behaviours within those different societies, and that includes the criminal element as much as it does the law-abiding ones. If you are missing this point, then you will not understand why the laws here are different for the ones you have there.

To live in Australia means to live in Australia, and that means accepting that the laws here are reflective of our environment, not yours. If our environment was like yours, we'd most likely have similar laws. The fact that we don't should tell you a fair bit about the culture and society here. This is not America with a different legal system.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill, you say that you have responded to all questions but ignored mine. I asked you what other country would you live in with your criteria. Total silence. I asked you if guns in schools would stop school shooting. Total silence. I told you that you didn't have all the facts, in the case. Total silence. You said the man was arrested for having an unregistered firearm. He wasn't, yet you still assert he was. He was placed under police guard in hospital because he shot two people in unknown circumstances. I told you that the trial wasn't until next month. Doesn't matter .. guilty until proven innocent. On the facts as stated in the article this guy has history. What that history is hasn't been released .. yet. The press release stated at the end that police investigations were continuing. Where are your critical reading skills?

Critical reading skills are more about reading one thing and thinking it says something else, but fair enough. I plead not having seen the questions. I'll fix that now.

1) I have no idea. I haven't investigated them all. I haven't found one yet with the freedoms the USA has, so I'm kind of leaning towards none.

2) I have no idea. At a well-known church shooting in Colorado Springs, the rampage was ended by an armed citizen who was a 'security volunteer'. She took out the gunman. At Appalachian Law College a decade ago, a pair of students ran to their car, retreived their handguns, and forced the surrender of a gunman who had killed two. So I'll guess 'yes', but I don't know.

3) I thought I answered that one. I know I don't have all the facts. I have enough to based a decision about my life on; I was not aware that Australia does not permit private gun ownership for the purposes of self-defense, and now I do.

4) When the victim is released from the hospital, will he walk free or be arrested?

Australian law ... you can't shoot people ... it's against OUR law. Your response; "I'd be shooting them also."
Australian law ... you must register firearms ... it's OUR law. Your response; "We don't have to register shotguns here. I wouldn't register if we did"
Not only are you saying you don't like our law, you are actually saying you would defy American law if it changed.
Australian law ... you CAN defend yourself or your family (NOT property) with deadly force but if you elect to do so you will have to justify those actions in court. You are saying you have a right to kill someone whether they pose a threat or not.

If "I would not want to live in the country that had a, b, or c as offenses." is not criticism of our law, I can't imagine what is.

I also don't like rap music. Nothing against it, I just don't like it. Is that a criticism of rap musicians?

He wasn't arrested for having an unregistered firearm. He was charged with having an unregistered firearm. He was arrested or put under armed guard because he shot two people under questionable cicumstances. The police had no discretion.

First, it's a distinction without a difference, and second, so what? He's not free to go.

But, Bill, that's not the worst. Despite all the Australians giving you the same story, you assert that you know better. I would have thought that a logical person would say, well if what you say is correct, I might have been wrong, but no, you just keep digging in deeper and deeper.

I just keep repeating my initial assertion; if Australia does not allow people to own guns for the stated purpose of self-defense, I don't want to live there.

As one of the other posters has said, you normally provide reasoned and well thought out posts but on this thread you really are way off the pace ... IMHO of course.

Sorry you feel that way.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Your argument is simple. You feel that a gun is the best possible item to have in your home for self defence purposes. You then learnt that in Australia, as in many (read: most) other places, having a firearm for the express purposes of self defence is against the law (as in not accepted as a reasonable cause to possess said firearm). For this reason you have decided that you would not live in Australia.

Correct.

You have backed this up by using a single occurance in which a shotgun was used, without any actual reference in the article as to whether or not it was required (as in reasonable force.... and yes, you'll come back with "if someone breaks into my house I'm going to assume that they mean to kill me or severely injure me, so I'll respond with deadly force", and that is not actually a real argument here, for reasons that I"ll get into in a moment), and argued that of course you are speaking from an American viewpoint, as well as saying that the Australian environment is not part of the equation.

Mostly yes. I'll go with it.

From our side, however, we have pointed out over and over again that the laws here are a reflection of our society, and that the purchase of firearms for self defence is not legal due to the lack of need (based on the society and environment we have here) that is present. We have also repeatedly pointed out that the Australian environment and situation is vital to this discussion, as the laws are a reflection of this country, not the US.

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?

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.

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.

Basically, it comes down to the fact that you cannot simply transport a mentality of one country to the laws of another. If you are looking at the laws here, you have to look at the environment that they apply to, otherwise you have no basis to make the argument. It really is like the Eskimo not wanting to move somewhere that doesn't allow him protection against polar bears. He's too fixated on the issues of his present location to see what the realities are in his new one.

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.

You have used a single occurance to justify this, and mentioned (when we bring up the rarity of this event) the rarity of being struck by lightening. You then state that we might as well be playing golf in a thunderstorm, for the relative risk, but again, that's not really an argument at all. Deliberately putting yourself in a situation which increases the chance of injury or death (for the record, it's 1 in 10 people hit by lightening that actually die, so this isn't necessarily fatal either) is very different to not having something which is not needed for anything other than the most rare of situations. But, so you know, even without playing golf in a thunderstorm, I'd suggest that being struck by lightening is a higher likelihood here. So is being eaten by a shark, so you know.

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 honestly reminds me of a Simpsons episode, which features a bear wandering into the town at the beginning of the episode. This involves the township panicking, even though the bear did little more than rumage through a few trash bins. The township demanded action, and the mayor established a "Bear Patrol", guarding against non-existant bear attacks. Line of the episode? (Mayor Quimby) "Are these morons getting stupider, or just louder?" (Mayor's Aide) "Stupider, sir."

Here's the difference. I'm not panicking, nor suggesting everyone go out hunting criminals.

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.

This is like your take here. It is a single occurance, which you have taken without it's context, and applied a response to it that is out of whack with the realities of the situation. Your argument of "it happened!" has as much weight as K-Man's example of school shootings being a reason to not send kids to school in the US (although it may be said that school shootings actually seem to be a more regular occurance....). It may also be noted that your constant assersion that "it happened!" isn't even strictly true based purely on the accounts given so far. All we have is that someone shot intruders, not that their life was being threatened, or anything similar that you have added to it.

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.

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.

To break it down, if you are talking about Australian laws, then you are talking about the laws as applied within an Australian context, in an Australian environment, in Australian situations. End of story there. If you were to move here (let's say it's not your choice, you get shifted for your career, or something similar), applying American mentalities and thought processes to what is then a foreign environment (to those thought processes) simply doesn't work.

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?

It rains everywhere. Even places where the chances of rainfall are low. If you stand somewhere long enough, you will get wet.

And finally, your assertion that "it's all the same at the point of a spear" is really not what we were saying. What we are saying is that there is not going to be a spear for you to be at the point of (and no, that's not denial of the realities of danger and assault with deadly weapons, it's a recognition of our environment and how that pertains to his discussion). Different cultures, different countries, different mentalities, different environments all add up to different behaviours within those different societies, and that includes the criminal element as much as it does the law-abiding ones. If you are missing this point, then you will not understand why the laws here are different for the ones you have there.

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.

To live in Australia means to live in Australia, and that means accepting that the laws here are reflective of our environment, not yours. If our environment was like yours, we'd most likely have similar laws. The fact that we don't should tell you a fair bit about the culture and society here. This is not America with a different legal system.

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.

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.

 

[Chris Parker]

Oh, dear Lord, Bill....

Correct.

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.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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.

Chris, I resign. You win. I can't go on arguing the same points. It *is* about the rare occasions which people invade homes, and nothing else, in my estimation. It is *not* about that to you. I think we've reached stalemate. :asian:

 

[Archangel M]

...even of home invaders if they are not intending homicide (say, just wanting to burgle, and not realising you're home).

This line of thinking just boggles me. There is no more dangerous situation out there than having criminal intruders in your home. You want to gamble your life on the assumption of anothers intentions?!?

In most states in the US; burglary is a crime that you are justified to respond to with deadly force.

 

[Chris Parker]

We are not talking about the US, and that has ramifications across the board in this example. In Australia, a home invader is a burglar with no weapons in the vast majority of instances. As stated at the beginning of the thread, those rare occasions where it is an armed intruder is pretty much always within the criminal fraternity, so adherance to laws isn't really going to be a concern there (by the victim as it relates to owning weaponry, hence the reference to bikies in the story that sparked all of this). That means that there are many far more dangerous situations that people can and do find themselves in in this country. It also means that it is not something that is justifiable to be met with deadly force according to our laws in the main.

One last time, if you are talking about Australian laws, you really do need to understand why those laws are the way they are, which includes understanding the Australian criminal culture and environment. If you don't understand that, and only apply the American culture as that is all you have experience of and therefore understanding of, then you are not in any position to even pass cursory judgement on Australian laws.

And I do have to say, your signature actually says it quite well, when taken in context. The entire passage has Jesus talking to the Apostles before the arrest in Gethsemane, asking them if they remember when he sent them out with no bag, no coat, no purse, and whether they needed anything at that time. Their answer is no. He then says that those that have bags and purses should get them, and those that have coats should sell them and get swords, as the time when they are needed is at hand. He is told they have two swords, and Jesus replies that that is enough.

Lesson here, there is a time and a place for weapons and use of force, but if the circumstances do not require it, then they are not needed. It's a matter of recognising what the circumstances actually are, and applying an American take on violent crime to the overtly non-violent crime in Australia just isn't recognising what the circumstances actually are.

 

[elder999]

We are not talking about the US, and that has ramifications across the board in this example. In Australia, a home invader is a burglar with no weapons in the vast majority of instances. .

One doesn't just prepare to defend against "the vast majority of instances," one prepares for the worst. WIth that in mind:

Melbourne Man and son stabbed in home invasion \

Home invasion: gun pointed at Sydney man's head

Duo arrested over home invasion

Man stabbed sitting on couch in Melbourne home invasion

In each instance, the people perpetrating these crimes were armed and/or accompanied by accomplices-a legitimate threat of deadly force, and by U.S. self defense doctrine, a threat that can be responded to with deadly force.

In every instance, here in the U.S., had the victims of these crimes been alerted and armed, or able to secure arms and use them, they'd have been justified in the use of deadly force. In my case, since most of the firearms in my possession were purchased used ,or inherited, they're not registered in my name-and that's not illegal, just a "flaw" in our registration system.

And one shouldn't think for a minute that a lone unarmed intruder cannot be justifiably shot, here in the U.S.-as I said upthread, I'd find out if they were armed after I shot them. Of course, I've repellled two "home invasions " in my life, and in both instances the sound of my chambering a round in my shotgun and saying "Get out of my house or I will shoot you. made the intruder flee. The way I see it, if someone is breaking into my home-when I'm home-their intentions aren't just to come take some of my stuff-their intentions are towards the occupants of my home, and I have to assume the worst.

Of course, it seems as though some of you are taking the positiion that I should have determined if they were armed first, or assumed that they weren't (were I in Australia, perhaps) but I wouldn't risk my wife and children's lives in that way. Like Bill, I'm glad I don't live in Australia, for a host of reasons, not the least of which is our castle doctrine, but mostly because I was born here, and have really come to love New Mexico.....

 

[Archangel M]

We are not talking about the US, and that has ramifications across the board in this example. In Australia, a home invader is a burglar with no weapons in the vast majority of instances. .

Which is discovered AFTER the fact. Planning/teaching/training self-defense with the mindset of "burglars are nothing to be too scared of, they wont hurt you and are usually unarmed" just seems odd coming from a martial arts forum.

 

[Archangel M]

Lesson here, there is a time and a place for weapons and use of force, but if the circumstances do not require it, then they are not needed.

And when they are? Then what do you do?

 

[Blade96]

"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."

I agree with this. The Aussies in this thread are just full of win! I had fun reading this! And like you, I love Bill. He's my friend. But I also think he's wrong here. Btw My uncle had his place burglarized, and my next door neighbor had his garage broken into. None of us have guns. I have grown up without ever seeing one. We dont feel we need them. btw we can have guns here but they have regulations. I dont see anything wrong with that. Our gun laws were put into place in 1995 for a good reason - the Montreal Masscre.

and that sentence 'better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it" It can see it making sense - if it applies to condoms.

That and saying you wont live somewhere just cause you cant own a gun how you like is a stupid reason to me.

 

[K-man]

One doesn't just prepare to defend against "the vast majority of instances," one prepares for the worst. WIth that in mind:

Melbourne Man and son stabbed in home invasion \

Home invasion: gun pointed at Sydney man's head

Duo arrested over home invasion

Man stabbed sitting on couch in Melbourne home invasion

In each instance, the people perpetrating these crimes were armed and/or accompanied by accomplices-a legitimate threat of deadly force, and by U.S. self defense doctrine, a threat that can be responded to with deadly force.

In every instance, here in the U.S., had the victims of these crimes been alerted and armed, or able to secure arms and use them, they'd have been justified in the use of deadly force. In my case, since most of the firearms in my possession were purchased used ,or inherited, they're not registered in my name-and that's not illegal, just a "flaw" in our registration system.

And one shouldn't think for a minute that a lone unarmed intruder cannot be justifiably shot, here in the U.S.-as I said upthread, I'd find out if they were armed after I shot them. Of course, I've repellled two "home invasions " in my life, and in both instances the sound of my chambering a round in my shotgun and saying "Get out of my house or I will shoot you. made the intruder flee. The way I see it, if someone is breaking into my home-when I'm home-their intentions aren't just to come take some of my stuff-their intentions are towards the occupants of my home, and I have to assume the worst.

Of course, it seems as though some of you are taking the positiion that I should have determined if they were armed first, or assumed that they weren't (were I in Australia, perhaps) but I wouldn't risk my wife and children's lives in that way. Like Bill, I'm glad I don't live in Australia, for a host of reasons, not the least of which is our castle doctrine, but mostly because I was born here, and have really come to love New Mexico.....

No-one is saying we don't have violent crime and no-one is saying that home invasion doesn't happen. Having a weaopon in the home does not eliminate the risk of harm. With all the weapons you guys have, it hasn't reduced the risk of harm. Per capita you have 10 times the deaths by shooting than us.

Even in the first example you quoted here, the guys were after drugs. As we were pointing out, much of our violence is within the criminal fraternity.

We have more of a problem with knives in Australia. Pretty much anyone in the country has access to a knife, much like your guns

. I use mine to cut the steak and keep them in the kitchen. To be honest I don't have even a stick in my bedroom and I don't know anyone here that feels any need to have a weapon in the bedroom.

In fact, in self defence I teach people not to carry a weapon. An untrained person with a weapon is likely to lose the weapon and have it used against them. Woken in the middle of the night, by the time you grab a weapon and orient youself, an armed intruder in the room will probably get you first anyway.

Most of our violence occurs in or around our nightclubs in the early hours after too many people have too much to drink.

What I have said is, in Australia we don't need to be armed with guns. Our violent crime rates per capita are a fraction of America's.

Elder, like with Bill, I enjoy your thought out posts but here you too seem to have jumped ship.

Like Bill, I'm glad I don't live in Australia, for a host of reasons, not the least of which is our castle doctrine, but mostly because I was born here, and have really come to love New Mexico....

If you can put your hand on your heart and say that you meant what you have written, then I really do feel sympathy for you.

Like you I'm glad I live in my country for many reasons. I'm glad I don't live in Libya, I'm glad I don't live in Somalia, I'm glad I don't live in the Congo, I'm glad I don't live in Zimbabwe, I'm glad I don't live in Bangladesh and there are probably another hundred other countries that I'm glad I don't live in because of poverty or violence or lack of democracy. To say "I'm glad I don't live in Australia, or Canada, or New Zealand, or Great Britain (although the weather there can be crap

) or other like countries is just plain stupid. For me, I consider myself extremely fortunate to live in a country that on the whole is free of violence, is democratic, is able to care for its citizens and affords the lifestyle we all enjoy. Let's celebrate the lifestyle we enjoy and think a little about those who have nothing like the lifestyle and priviledges we take for granted, for whom each day is a matter of subsistance. :asian:

 

[Ken Morgan]

We’re all unique, just like everyone else.

I’m glad I live in Canada, with our freedoms and culture, and I wouldn’t choose to live anywhere else. However if I had to live in the United States, I would be a gun owning member of that society as that society almost demands one to own a gun.

 

[elder999]

Elder, like with Bill, I enjoy your thought out posts but here you too seem to have jumped ship.
If you can put your hand on your heart and say that you meant what you have written, then I really do feel sympathy for you.

Yeah, I can. I've been to Australia, worked with Australians and New Zealanders, and-as a "brown fella", I'm glad I don't live in Australia-got nothing to do with being able to shoot a home invader.

 

[Archangel M]

The thing "Non Americans" don't understand is that "guns" are really about our dogged defense of our individual freedoms. It's not about being "paranoid", it's about us having the freedom to own a gun if we so choose. A large chunk of us would rather live with the possibility of gun violence than give the freedom of gun ownership up to the nanny state. This has been so since our inception:

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

-- Patrick Henry

"No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state.... Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."

-- State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788

Ultimately..in the USA its not about "self-defense", it's about the government not being allowed to disarm us and assume the ultimate power.