Glad I don't live in Australia

[Whitebelt]

Here is a brief summary of why I am glad I don't live in Australia, I was hoping to just find one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_Australian_spiders

 

[K-man]

Here is a brief summary of why I am glad I don't live in Australia, I was hoping to just find one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_Australian_spiders

Now Arachnophobia I can understand!

 

[K-man]

You are confusing the issue IMO.

Bill isn't saying that "I don't want to live in Australia because they have home invasions".

Hes saying "I don't want to live in Australia because they won't allow me the tools to defend myself if my home is invaded..." like the man we are discussing.

And I'm saying "I don't want to live in America because they won't allow my kids the tools to defend themselves if their school is invaded..."

It is a totally irrational argument because BOTH of these scenarios are outside the law and that is for good reason.

In America, so far, kids aren't allowed to take guns to school for self defence and we can't have guns at home for self defence. They simply aren't necessary in each case.

All I am saying is that Bill is citing one example of a rare occurance in Australia that may be only stating only half the story. He justifies his position by stating that "It happened". I'm saying that the school shooting happened. So what?

I admit that one rare occurance shouldn't cloud your logic, Bill doesn't. :asian:

 

[Archangel M]

If you Aussies are happy with your laws thats fine. Nobody here is saying you have to change anything. Bill has stated previously that this is just his opinion.

I personally find it amusing how people get all defensive when THEIR country gets criticized but tell us Yanks that we are too sensitive when we get defensive when our nation is "bashed". Not necessarily you K-man, but it's a trend I have seen hereabouts.

 

[K-man]

If you Aussies are happy with your laws thats fine. Nobody here is saying you have to change anything. Bill has stated previously that this is just his opinion.

I personally find it amusing how people get all defensive when THEIR country gets criticized but tell us Yanks that we are too sensitive when we get defensive when our nation is "bashed". Not necessarily you K-man, but it's a trend I have seen hereabouts.

I agree with your sentiments. Feel free to "Bash" Australia. But make sure that the criticism is based on fact, not rumour or speculation. I'm happy to argue my position anytime.

If Bill had said, "I think Australians should be able to keep guns in the home for self defence", we can debate that.

If Bill had said, "I read about a home invasion in Perth where the guy pulled out an unregistered firearm and shot the intruders. What do you think about him being charged?" We could discuss that.

The problem with this OP was, a statement was made that was based on one case for which the facts have not even been established. This was then used to make a statement of opinion that inferred that Australia was an unsafe place to live because we are not permitted to own firearms for self defence and we are not allowed to kill someone who enters our home illegally. This is as irrational as my post above about the terrible school shooting in Virginia.

I'll make a statement of statistical fact. American's per capita are more than 10 times more likely to die from shooting incidents than Australians and we probably have about 2 million legal firearms in private hands in Australia.

In 2000, the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) conducted an International Crime Victims Survey that included comparative data on firearm ownership in Australia, the USA, Canada and the UK. From this survey the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) estimated that in 2000 about 10 per cent of Australian households owned a gun, reflecting a decline of 45 per cent in gun ownership since 1989. In Australia, the majority of households which owned a firearm did so for hunting or sport-related purposes. Details of the findings were published in the firearm ownership section of Australian Crime - Facts and Figures 2001.

Now my question. To get to the American level of gun ownership we would have to increase our ownership at least ten fold. Can anyone say with any conviction, that would make Australia a safer place?

I am not commenting on America's gun laws. If American society is really half as bad as Bill has stated, then you probably need more than just guns. If he is right, and it is apparent from his post that he is very concerned for his safety even at home, then I genuinely feel sorry for all Americans because none of us should have to live with that level of fear.

From an Australian perspective. Our people have voted with their feet. They walked into the police stations all over the country and handed in nearly half of the firearms that were in the community. They wouldn't have done that if they didn't feel secure.

Personally, I didn't have any concerns anywhere in America when I was there. I will admit we got a few strange looks in Harlem but that was as far as it went. I have walked through Cape Town alone and my wife and I went through the shanty town of Soweto. We immersed ourselves in the backstreets of the Moroccan cities without any hesitation. Recently I was in Taipei and I was wandering through little alleyways after midnight. Now, I am not saying there is no problem in America, but I am saying that I think the media has a lot to answer for because it is always doing a beatup and overstating the problem.

As far as this thread goes, Mook, Chris and I are all saying the same thing. America is different to Australia. We don't want guns, we don't need guns and we love the way we live. Refresh you memory, have another look at Mook's post. :asian:

 

[Flying Crane]

The same story as firearms. If you have a valid reason you can obtain a permit. So, in your case, you are a bone fide martial artist and you may have your swords. You can also get a permit if you are a genuine collector of swords. (May be different if you have a bad police record.)

Staffs, no problem. Spears, same category as swords. Nunchaka, Sai, Tonfa etc need the same permit.

Ordinary bows for sporting purpose are ok but I think you need to be a member of a registered club to have a crossbow.

In Victoria we have three categories.



This includes firearms and most of our MA weapons including guan-dao.



That would include underwater spear guns.



No-one with a legitimate reason misses out, and that includes hand guns. In that case it is severely restricted but if you are involved in security etc you can get a permit.

http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=25574

All seems reasonable to me. :asian:

ah, all is not lost, thanks!

I've always wanted to make it down to Australia for a while, but haven't made it yet. Looking forward to getting there.

 

[wayneshin]

Just want to make the point that the guy in Perth was NOT charged because he defended himself. It is because it was with an UNREGISTERED weapon. It is no problem getting a weapon registered for a legitimate purpose eg Hunting.

It seems that the US posters main argument is I need to have a gun in case I need to defend myself against a gun.
I know it has already been raised and ignored so I will spell it out. The US has TRIPLE the murder rate of your typical westernised countries. (Australia, UK, Italy, France, Spain Canada etc). It is really simple. You have too many guns in your community.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Just want to make the point that the guy in Perth was NOT charged because he defended himself. It is because it was with an UNREGISTERED weapon. It is no problem getting a weapon registered for a legitimate purpose eg Hunting.

But it is a problem getting a weapon for self-defense.

It seems that the US posters main argument is I need to have a gun in case I need to defend myself against a gun.

The person who was arrested did.

I know it has already been raised and ignored so I will spell it out. The US has TRIPLE the murder rate of your typical westernised countries. (Australia, UK, Italy, France, Spain Canada etc). It is really simple. You have too many guns in your community.

We also have the means to legally defend ourselves in most places in the USA using a firearm.

My point was and remains that I would not want to live in a place in which I was not permitted to own a gun for self-defense.

 

[K-man]

You have too many guns in your community.

Mate, I might agree with you .... but .... Shhhh! Talk like that gets you into a lot of trouble on this forum.

 

[Rayban]

I'm just going to echo what has already been stated.

America and Australia are very different societies. Trying to apply the "American" way of living here doesn't work and visa versa.

Gun crime in Australia is so small compared to other forms of violent crime that owning a gun to defend against someone else with a gun is just not needed.

All this talk I've seen about "would you like to be that one statistic?" is a bit strange.
Down here its like saying "I'm going to wear a hard hat whenever I'm outside because a meteor might fall on me".

My point is that preparing for remote possibilities is just silly.

Your attitude towards safety changes with the culture. I am much more terrified of being knifed, hit by a car and struck by lightning than I am of being shot.

 

[Chris Parker]

The person who was arrested did.

That's the thing, Bill, he didn't. All the article says is that he was assaulted with an unknown weapon:

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.

I really get the feeling that if the intruders had guns, that would have been mentioned, but is sounds more like a blunt weapon attack to me. Not that that is less potentially fatal, but it does kinda remove the argument that you need a gun to protect yourself from other people with guns here. Okay?

My point was and remains that I would not want to live in a place in which I was not permitted to own a gun for self-defense.

Even if the place was one that didn't require a fun for self defence? Really? Even after all this?

Really, Bill, you're entitled to your opinion of our laws, no one is arguing that, our argument is that your take on it is irrational, as you are applying the environment of the US to the laws of Australia. It just doesn't make any sense, when looked at it rationally.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That's the thing, Bill, he didn't. All the article says is that he was assaulted with an unknown weapon:

You want to match up weapon for weapon, skill for skill, eh? So if an intruder breaks in and comes at you with a hammer, you arm yourself with a hammer. If he has a knife, you get the kitchen knife and you go at it with moving music playing in the background. How about if someone breaks into my home and assaults me with a weapon, they're likely to get shot.

I really get the feeling that if the intruders had guns, that would have been mentioned, but is sounds more like a blunt weapon attack to me. Not that that is less potentially fatal, but it does kinda remove the argument that you need a gun to protect yourself from other people with guns here. Okay?

Not OK. What about the elderly, the infirm, the injured? Smaller people, women and younger people who don't have the size, skills, or matching weapons to go up against your attacker with an 'unknown weapon'?

Even if the place was one that didn't require a fun for self defence? Really? Even after all this?

Really, Bill, you're entitled to your opinion of our laws, no one is arguing that, our argument is that your take on it is irrational, as you are applying the environment of the US to the laws of Australia. It just doesn't make any sense, when looked at it rationally.

I'm looking at it quite rationally. The point has been made that such break-ins are rare; fine, they're rare. They're rare here too; in all my years, my apartment was once burgled and my car was broken into once, but no one has ever kicked in my door and come at me with a weapon. That does not mean I don't take precautions, and in my estimation, private gun ownership is an excellent precaution; one that is not permitted in Australia for purposes of self-defense.

I have asked - no one has answered - how you'd like being the the fellow who was listed in the article; would you be bludgeoned to a bloody mess content in the knowledge that your case was quite rare?

I own firearms for the same reason I train in martial arts; to prepare for things I hope I never need. But if I need the skills; or the weapon; I want them to be available.

Australia is a great place that forbids private gun ownership for the stated purpose of self-defense. Arguing that it's not needed in the face of a situation where it clearly was seems to me to be a losing proposition. But my opinion remains the same; glad I don't live there.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

My point is that preparing for remote possibilities is just silly.

So martial arts training is silly too? I mean, the chances are remote that you'll ever need to defend yourself using your martial arts skills.

Your attitude towards safety changes with the culture. I am much more terrified of being knifed, hit by a car and struck by lightning than I am of being shot.

If someone attacked me with a knife, I'd hope I had a gun handy. Under no circumstances am I going to intentionally defend myself against a knife attack with my empty hands or another knife. I'm not a knife-fighter; if someone breaks into my house and attacks me with a knife, I'm going to do my best to shoot them.

 

[Archangel M]

Where the F is this "need a gun to defend against a gun" thing coming from? A gun is a tool to defend yourself...period. Not a weapon to specifically defend yourself against another gun. If my daughter had to defend herself against a 6' 250 lb guy with a knife, her best chances are with a gun. Are we seriously saying that "well they only had blunt weapons so you wouldn't need a gun?"

Is the concept of deadly force really that different there from what it is here?

 

[Chris Parker]

You want to match up weapon for weapon, skill for skill, eh? So if an intruder breaks in and comes at you with a hammer, you arm yourself with a hammer. If he has a knife, you get the kitchen knife and you go at it with moving music playing in the background. How about if someone breaks into my home and assaults me with a weapon, they're likely to get shot.

Come on Bill, that's not what you said.

It seems that the US posters main argument is I need to have a gun in case I need to defend myself against a gun.

The person who was arrested did.

No, he didn't need to defend himself against a gun. And you may note that I still said that other weapons were not potentially less lethal there....

Not OK. What about the elderly, the infirm, the injured? Smaller people, women and younger people who don't have the size, skills, or matching weapons to go up against your attacker with an 'unknown weapon'?

Okay, fun challenge for you. Australian news, assaults with a gun over the last year against elderly, infirm, or injured. Can you find one? How about the year before that? Honestly, in all assaults against such persons, I can't remember a report about a gun being involved. And are you really suggesting that a frail elderly woman, with no training, is better off with a gun? Gotta say, that doesn't seem to be a good solution to me. The elderly, infirm, disabled etc will need training in how to use the weapon still, won't they? I don't know of many grandmothers that would want to be anywhere near a gun, let alone have one or subject themselves to training with one. Really, Bill, most people look at me funny here when I talk about my time on a pistol range! Especially when I say I enjoyed it!

I'm looking at it quite rationally. The point has been made that such break-ins are rare; fine, they're rare. They're rare here too; in all my years, my apartment was once burgled and my car was broken into once, but no one has ever kicked in my door and come at me with a weapon. That does not mean I don't take precautions, and in my estimation, private gun ownership is an excellent precaution; one that is not permitted in Australia for purposes of self-defense.

No, Bill, you're not looking at it rationally. You're looking at it with an American mentality and trying to attach it to an Australian situation, that is not rational. It's as rational as a man telling a woman that he understands the pain of childbirth because he once skinned his knee, the sitautions are completely seperate, with very little to connect them.

We don't allow guns for self defence because that would cause the bad guys to get more guns in order to still have the upper hand, and that is something we'd rather not encourage. If there is not a reasonable, rational case for doing so, why would we? Do you start to see the issues of gun control as we see it now? It actually stops the criminals from arming themselves with firearms!

I have asked - no one has answered - how you'd like being the the fellow who was listed in the article; would you be bludgeoned to a bloody mess content in the knowledge that your case was quite rare?

You do know why no-one answered you, though, right? The question is loaded from the start, designed to paint anyone who would still argue against guns as crazy, or cowardly in not wanting to fight back. Is it really meant to be taken as a serious question in that light?

I own firearms for the same reason I train in martial arts; to prepare for things I hope I never need. But if I need the skills; or the weapon; I want them to be available.

Australia is a great place that forbids private gun ownership for the stated purpose of self-defense. Arguing that it's not needed in the face of a situation where it clearly was seems to me to be a losing proposition. But my opinion remains the same; glad I don't live there.

That's the thing, though Bill, was it clearly needed? I wasn't there, you weren't there, there have been scant details in the reports, none of which even lead me to believe that the assault was meant to be fatal. Your entire premise is based on a partial report of a story in a country with a vastly different criminal culture than your own, and you're arguing the same as an Eskimo claiming he'd never move to Barbados as they don't let him protect himself againt Polar Bears there (and before you say that there's people everywhere, my point is that the dangers in one place are just not the same as those found in another... Barbados has dangers all it's own that the Eskimo should be better prepared for other than Polar Bears).

So martial arts training is silly too? I mean, the chances are remote that you'll ever need to defend yourself using your martial arts skills.

Oh, dear lords, Bill, really? If that is your real concern, honestly, get yourself to an RBSD course, fast. I've said many times here that martial arts are simply not geared up for modern violence, the modern legal system, or any other aspect to make them self defence as is, a fair bit of retro-fitting needs to happen for that first. So there has to be other reasons to train, yeah? I mean, if all you wanted was to learn to handle yourself, once you could land a solid hit, that's it. Leave the school. But there's a lot more to it than that, to restrict your take on martial arts to "if you aren't going to get into a fight, then martial arts training is silly and paranoid" really shows a desperation in your argument. You know what martial arts can offer much better than that.

If someone attacked me with a knife, I'd hope I had a gun handy. Under no circumstances am I going to intentionally defend myself against a knife attack with my empty hands or another knife. I'm not a knife-fighter; if someone breaks into my house and attacks me with a knife, I'm going to do my best to shoot them.

If someone attacked you with a knife, odds are you wouldn't have a chance to get to your gun, and if you had it with you, you may be so caught up trying to get to it that you miss the opportunity to escape or defend, and get killed because of it. If we're going to look at this realistically, that is. Honestly, what I'd want would be a barrier, then distance. The highest firepower weapon is not always the best, but human psychology screams in a high stress high adrenaline survival situation like that to go for the most powerful thing we can get, which would be the gun, whether it is the best option or not. And close quarters against a knife, it really aint. This argument doesn't stand up, I'm afraid.

Where the F is this "need a gun to defend against a gun" thing coming from? Are we seriously saying that "well they only had blunt weapons so you wouldn't need a gun?"

From Bill's post, see above.

Is the concept of deadly force really that different there from what it is here?

Again, there isn't actually an indication that there was deadly force or even intent there. There may have been, those details are not present in the story, though. And yes, deadly force can be met with deadly force, deadly intent can be met with deadly force, it comes down to what is considered "reasonable" force, and within those criteria, it would fit. But, one more time here, that is NOT WHAT THE GUY WAS CHARGED WITH! So it's really moot to the discussion based on the article, or Bill's objection to living here (based on the fact that, although he can apply and get firearms if he lived here, he couldn't get one for the express purpose of defence in his home).

Really, deadly force is also beside the point. The majority of armed assaults are with bladed weapons, knives particularly. They are plenty deadly themselves. But that doesn't mean that people should all get guns, as I said, a gun would have little effect on the persons survivability against most knife assaults.

So maybe, just maybe, can we come to the agreement that Australia may just know what is best for our personal defence needs? And, although it may shock or dismay some here, that is not a gun.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

No, he didn't need to defend himself against a gun. And you may note that I still said that other weapons were not potentially less lethal there....

You have an odd notion of what other people 'need' to defend themselves. It appears to be based on a romanticized notion that bad people have restraint, self-control, and no real desire to hurt anyone, not to mention that if your home is invaded and you are attacked with violence, you won't be seriously hurt.

And are you really suggesting that a frail elderly woman, with no training, is better off with a gun?

Did I say 'no training'? I would certainly hope anyone who chose to own a gun for self-defense would take the time to learn to use it. In fact, I think I've urged that in every gun thread I've been part of on MT.

However, worse comes to worse, yes, a frail elderly woman with no training stands a far better chance of defending herself with a gun than she would with any weapon or empty-hand self-defense system that required knowledge and skill to use properly. A gun can be very much a point and pull response.

Gotta say, that doesn't seem to be a good solution to me. The elderly, infirm, disabled etc will need training in how to use the weapon still, won't they? I don't know of many grandmothers that would want to be anywhere near a gun, let alone have one or subject themselves to training with one. Really, Bill, most people look at me funny here when I talk about my time on a pistol range! Especially when I say I enjoyed it!

If you're saying that, you are essentially saying you'd rather see them dead at the hands of an intruder than able to defend themselves with a firearm.

No, Bill, you're not looking at it rationally. You're looking at it with an American mentality and trying to attach it to an Australian situation, that is not rational. It's as rational as a man telling a woman that he understands the pain of childbirth because he once skinned his knee, the sitautions are completely seperate, with very little to connect them.

I'm looking at it rationally as I am what I am - an American. I can't have an Australian mentality on it, I'm not an Australian. However, the situation I'm applying it to is universal; a man's home is broken into and he is attacked by an intruder. That's not really different from place to place that I'm aware of.

We don't allow guns for self defence because that would cause the bad guys to get more guns in order to still have the upper hand, and that is something we'd rather not encourage. If there is not a reasonable, rational case for doing so, why would we? Do you start to see the issues of gun control as we see it now? It actually stops the criminals from arming themselves with firearms!

Reasonable criminals. Hmmm, that seems quite odd to me. Perhaps if you placed your valuables outside on the ground, it would stop them kicking in doors or mugging people as well, eh?

You do know why no-one answered you, though, right? The question is loaded from the start, designed to paint anyone who would still argue against guns as crazy, or cowardly in not wanting to fight back. Is it really meant to be taken as a serious question in that light?

I'd like to hear an answer. I keep reading that the fellow in question didn't need a gun to defend himself. So I ask you to put yourself in his place for a moment, and your door has just been kicked in, and here comes the stranger with the 'unknown weapon' and oh dear he's striking you with it. If you feel that the victim in this case needed no gun, then I must ask you what you'd do if it were you. Accept your fate with meek tranquility, because using a gun to defend your life is wrong? Or fight back with any means at your disposal, including a gun if you found one in your hands?

That's the thing, though Bill, was it clearly needed? I wasn't there, you weren't there, there have been scant details in the reports, none of which even lead me to believe that the assault was meant to be fatal.

If someone is beating me over the head with an 'unknown weapon', I am going to reasonably assume that he means to end my life. In any case, his intent may have little to do with what actually happens; he may mean to whack me one upside my noggin for posting inflammatory things on MT, but it turns out I have a very breakable skull. Or he may be unable to control himself once he experiences the joy of smacking me around a bit. In any case, the choice - to kill me or merely seriously injure me - is not mine at that point, it's his. That is an intolerable situation. I'm quite rightly going to assume he means to kill me and react accordingly.

To presume that he a) merely means to injure me seriously but not kill me, and b) that he is capable of precisely administering the blows to do just that and not kill me seems very illogical to me. Yes, he might just mean to injure me. I'm not going to ask him his intent, nor wait to see what happens. He made his choices when he kicked in my door and attacked me. I am going to make my choices based on what he's done, not what he might or might not intend.

Your entire premise is based on a partial report of a story in a country with a vastly different criminal culture than your own, and you're arguing the same as an Eskimo claiming he'd never move to Barbados as they don't let him protect himself againt Polar Bears there (and before you say that there's people everywhere, my point is that the dangers in one place are just not the same as those found in another... Barbados has dangers all it's own that the Eskimo should be better prepared for other than Polar Bears).

I am basing my premise upon an actual incident. It's not made-up, nor is it theoretical.

Oh, dear lords, Bill, really? If that is your real concern, honestly, get yourself to an RBSD course, fast. I've said many times here that martial arts are simply not geared up for modern violence, the modern legal system, or any other aspect to make them self defence as is, a fair bit of retro-fitting needs to happen for that first. So there has to be other reasons to train, yeah? I mean, if all you wanted was to learn to handle yourself, once you could land a solid hit, that's it. Leave the school. But there's a lot more to it than that, to restrict your take on martial arts to "if you aren't going to get into a fight, then martial arts training is silly and paranoid" really shows a desperation in your argument. You know what martial arts can offer much better than that.

Martial arts are not merely for self-defense, but that is their primary function. It's certainly one of the biggest reasons I train.

If someone attacked you with a knife, odds are you wouldn't have a chance to get to your gun, and if you had it with you, you may be so caught up trying to get to it that you miss the opportunity to escape or defend, and get killed because of it.

That's an assumption, and I feel a false one. However, let's go with it. One thing we can determine factually is this. I cannot defend myself with a gun I do not own. If I own a gun, I have a chance, however small, of defending my life with it. A small chance beats no chance. Simple logic.

If we're going to look at this realistically, that is. Honestly, what I'd want would be a barrier, then distance.

Seems quite logical to me. And that precludes the use of a firearm how?

The highest firepower weapon is not always the best, but human psychology screams in a high stress high adrenaline survival situation like that to go for the most powerful thing we can get, which would be the gun, whether it is the best option or not. And close quarters against a knife, it really aint. This argument doesn't stand up, I'm afraid.

Google News.



‎Would you care to repeat your assertion that homeowners don't have time to use their guns anyway?

 

[Chris Parker]

You have an odd notion of what other people 'need' to defend themselves. It appears to be based on a romanticized notion that bad people have restraint, self-control, and no real desire to hurt anyone, not to mention that if your home is invaded and you are attacked with violence, you won't be seriously hurt.

Bill, you stated that the person in the original story you linked needed to defend himself against a gun. I've already quoted you saying that. There is no indication that the intruders had guns. So his "need to defend himself against a gun" is non-existant in this story. Believe me, I am under no misapprehensions as you indicate here, just pointing out that even this detail of the story doesn't support what you're saying, or your call for us to arm ourselves in such a manner.

Did I say 'no training'? I would certainly hope anyone who chose to own a gun for self-defense would take the time to learn to use it. In fact, I think I've urged that in every gun thread I've been part of on MT.

Ah, my mistake. I just went back and double-checked, you mentioned untrained in martial arts. But the reality is that most of those you mention, with an Australian mentality, would prefer to not have one. Other than farmers and hunters, I haven't come across anyone who wants guns (I don't really hang in criminal circles....), and certainly don't think of them for self defence. That may surprise you as well, but here we do not view guns as tools of self defence, they are weapons of the police, the military, and criminals (although the latter in the minority, and as mentioned, they tend to aim them at each other, rather than the populace).

However, worse comes to worse, yes, a frail elderly woman with no training stands a far better chance of defending herself with a gun than she would with any weapon or empty-hand self-defense system that required knowledge and skill to use properly. A gun can be very much a point and pull response.

Hmm, with my, admittedly limited, time on pistol ranges, knowing the feel of a firearm, the recoil, the issues with aiming them, I'm still going to doubt that. In fact, I think that there would be far more accidental shootings in those circumstances than actual effective self defence.

If you're saying that, you are essentially saying you'd rather see them dead at the hands of an intruder than able to defend themselves with a firearm.

I'm going to shock you again here, but our intruders rarely kill. Steal, yes. But kill? This is not America. Yes, it does happen, but in most instances I can remember it is due to criminal involvement (on the part of the victim), or one or two instances of wealthy people being targeted.... and you'd think they could afford proper security!

So your alarmist skewing of my post really is again a moot point, you know.

I'm looking at it rationally as I am what I am - an American. I can't have an Australian mentality on it, I'm not an Australian. However, the situation I'm applying it to is universal; a man's home is broken into and he is attacked by an intruder. That's not really different from place to place that I'm aware of.

The relative risk and cultural approach to criminal behaviour does change from place to place, Bill, and I feel that you know that. The types of crimes are different in one area to another, the levels criminals go to is different, the responces from the public are different, the punishments and laws are different. Really, you know that.

And looking at the Australian situation without taking into account the Australian approach, viewpoint, understanding, mentality, and so on is not rational. It's demonstative of an inability to look beyond your own understanding. Without being able to look at things from an Australian point of view, you really aren't in a position to start commenting the way you are. Broad brush-strokes of "home invaders are universal" doesn't do you any credit, as there are too many differences even within the same culture, let alone another one.

Reasonable criminals. Hmmm, that seems quite odd to me. Perhaps if you placed your valuables outside on the ground, it would stop them kicking in doors or mugging people as well, eh?

Hey, it works. Have you thought that the individual arms race that seems to happen in the US simply makes the criminals their upgrade their weaponry to handle the firearms the homeowners their targeting now have? So the homeowners now upgrade what they have? And so on... and so on.... and so on..... We've seen that on a large scale, might as well accept that it didn't work there (how close did the world come to being the victim of the nuclear arms race?), and it isn't working for you on a small scale either.

There are reasons the US has such a high fatality rate when it comes to firearms.

I'd like to hear an answer. I keep reading that the fellow in question didn't need a gun to defend himself. So I ask you to put yourself in his place for a moment, and your door has just been kicked in, and here comes the stranger with the 'unknown weapon' and oh dear he's striking you with it. If you feel that the victim in this case needed no gun, then I must ask you what you'd do if it were you. Accept your fate with meek tranquility, because using a gun to defend your life is wrong? Or fight back with any means at your disposal, including a gun if you found one in your hands?

Really, Bill, that is far too vague. The simple answer is that I'd fight back, most typically by closing and clinching if I couldn't see what was going on, and "feeling" my way from there... but there are again far too many variables. Unless you were in the room, you don't know if he needed a gun, or if you would have needed one either.

Your question is loaded, you are giving two options, use a gun, or meekly let them bash your head in. The world just isn't that black and white, and again, you know it. The real answer is "neither".

If someone is beating me over the head with an 'unknown weapon', I am going to reasonably assume that he means to end my life. In any case, his intent may have little to do with what actually happens; he may mean to whack me one upside my noggin for posting inflammatory things on MT, but it turns out I have a very breakable skull. Or he may be unable to control himself once he experiences the joy of smacking me around a bit. In any case, the choice - to kill me or merely seriously injure me - is not mine at that point, it's his. That is an intolerable situation. I'm quite rightly going to assume he means to kill me and react accordingly.

Again, the article only says "assaulted with an unknown weapon", you're leaping to a necessarily lethal intent and action. And if it's a lethal intent and action, then you know that we would say that lethal responce is warranted. But we do not have those details, the reason for the invasion is not disclosed, there is nothing to suggest that it was intent for anything other than scare or steal. To be "assaulted with an unknown weapon" could be a rod inserted somewhere unpleasant, you know.... or anything else.

The situation is not clearly stated.

And, as you well know, reasonable force is not decided by those involved at the time, it's decided by the court who hears the case. So what you think here is largely irrelevant as well (in terms of it not mattering whether they are intending to kill you or not, you'll react as if they are), as if the opposition lawyers can demonstrate that the intent was not lethal injury, or even anything close, and you pull a gun, things won't turn out well for you.

Each case will be tried on it's merits.

To presume that he a) merely means to injure me seriously but not kill me, and b) that he is capable of precisely administering the blows to do just that and not kill me seems very illogical to me. Yes, he might just mean to injure me. I'm not going to ask him his intent, nor wait to see what happens. He made his choices when he kicked in my door and attacked me. I am going to make my choices based on what he's done, not what he might or might not intend.

Again, you're introducing aspects that are simply not present. Who says there was a sudden kicking in of a door? Who says that it's not a silent picking of a lock? Who says the "assault with an unknown weapon" isn't just a rope used to try to tie him up and gag him if he woke up? Really, Bill, the article gives none of the details you seem to be basing your entire argument on.

As for logical or not, that's again not the issue. You're attributing conscious decision making where it doesn't exist.

I am basing my premise upon an actual incident. It's not made-up, nor is it theoretical.

No, Bill, you're basing your premise on a single, isolated, rare instance, where you are adding in details that don't exist in the story itself to support your position, and ignoring the realities of the situation. It is entirely theoretical, as the situation you are describing does not exist in any of the stories that have been brought up.

Martial arts are not merely for self-defense, but that is their primary function. It's certainly one of the biggest reasons I train.

I have huge respect for Karate, and Isshin Ryu, but you missed the point of it then. There are much better, faster, more effective, and far more reliable ways of attaining that goal.

That's an assumption, and I feel a false one. However, let's go with it. One thing we can determine factually is this. I cannot defend myself with a gun I do not own. If I own a gun, I have a chance, however small, of defending my life with it. A small chance beats no chance. Simple logic.

Actually, that's not so much an assumption, it's based on the dominant methods of attack and assault with a bladed weapon, and understanding what is needed for surviving such a situation, as well as understanding what is involved in retrieving a firearm when required, such as the distance and time required. A barrier is better, as is distance. I'd be more confident of going unarmed against a knife (against a common knife assault) than trying to get to a firearm in such circumstances. Note, this is not a case of someone pulling a knife from a distance and trying to threaten you, I'm talking about actual knife assaults here. Close quarters against a gun, knife wins.

Seems quite logical to me. And that precludes the use of a firearm how?

It doesn't. But it doesn't necessitate one either, Bill.

Google News.

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

‎

Would you care to repeat your assertion that homeowners don't have time to use their guns anyway?

Okay, let's take it back a bit. The "time to draw" thing was commenting on knife assaults, as you initially stated that a gun was needed to protect your home against an invader with a gun, when it was pointed out that a gun was not present, you brought up other weapons, so I took that as a springboard to discuss the use of firearms against one of the scariest and most dangerous weapons on that list, taking it away from being about homeowners, and into the more general "self defence" arena.

And it really depends on where the gun is, how the knife is present, where everyone is, and so on. Vague hypotheticals with no context aren't possible to answer, and once again, you know this.

Let's go back to the beginning, though.

You say you are glad you don't live here as you wouldn't be allowed to have a gun for the express purpose of self protection. Not that you couldn't have a gun, as you can, but that you couldn't claim that as your reason when applying for a licence.

It has then been pointed out time and time again that there is no real need for such measures in Australia.

You have ignored this by claiming that a single, isolated incident, with no supporting details for your case, proves that things happen here. Here's the thing, though, once is an anomaly. Twice is a co-incidence. You'll need three times for a pattern to begin and for you to have a case. Preferably close together geographically, chronologically, etc.

You have since taken this in every direction you can other than seeing that, if you were living in Australia, the very reasons you want the gun don't exist. Making the need, or reasons given for possessing such a weapon utterly irrelevant.

Is that about it?

 

[Archangel M]

Really, deadly force is also beside the point. The majority of armed assaults are with bladed weapons, knives particularly. They are plenty deadly themselves. But that doesn't mean that people should all get guns, as I said, a gun would have little effect on the persons survivability against most knife assaults.

So maybe, just maybe, can we come to the agreement that Australia may just know what is best for our personal defence needs? And, although it may shock or dismay some here, that is not a gun.

You are confusing "initiative" with weapon.

You could kill me with a soda bottle if I had a gun and you had the initiative. If you have a knife in your belt and I have a gun and the intent to shoot you before you are aware of my intent you are going down. People misunderstand what the Tueller drill means all the time. The fact of the matter is that training or not..disability or not...physical size notwithstanding..the gun is far more effective in equalizing physical/weapon discrepancies than any other weapon in history.

[yt]J6gcFPjdwiI[/yt]

 

[yorkshirelad]

Australians don't need a gun, they've got a Donk.

Hope you Ozzies don't mind the Crocodile Dundee reference.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill, you stated that the person in the original story you linked needed to defend himself against a gun. I've already quoted you saying that. There is no indication that the intruders had guns. So his "need to defend himself against a gun" is non-existant in this story. Believe me, I am under no misapprehensions as you indicate here, just pointing out that even this detail of the story doesn't support what you're saying, or your call for us to arm ourselves in such a manner.

I think we are disagreeing about what represents the need for a gun for self-defense. You seem to believe that a gun is only necessary for self-defense if a gun is known to be in the hands of the criminal. I reject that philosophy. There is no 'fighting fair' in self-defense, and a person defending their home and especially their person whilst inside their home is under no obligation to meet force with like force. If a person kicks in my door and comes at me with a pocketknife and I have a gun, I'm not going to put down my gun and go scraping about for a pocketknife of my own. So yes, in my worldview, a gun is absolutely essential for home protection and self-defense therein. I base my statement that the victim in this case needed a gun on the fact that he had one and used it.

Ah, my mistake. I just went back and double-checked, you mentioned untrained in martial arts. But the reality is that most of those you mention, with an Australian mentality, would prefer to not have one. Other than farmers and hunters, I haven't come across anyone who wants guns (I don't really hang in criminal circles....), and certainly don't think of them for self defence. That may surprise you as well, but here we do not view guns as tools of self defence, they are weapons of the police, the military, and criminals (although the latter in the minority, and as mentioned, they tend to aim them at each other, rather than the populace).

I do not doubt you that Australians do not view firearms as self-defense weapons. I do. Hence my opinion that I would not want to live in a nation in which firearms were not allowed to be owned for the stated purpose of self-defense.

I am not calling Australians wrong, nor suggesting that Australia needs to change to suit me. I am stating that *I* meaning me, personally, would not want to live there and this is why.

Hmm, with my, admittedly limited, time on pistol ranges, knowing the feel of a firearm, the recoil, the issues with aiming them, I'm still going to doubt that. In fact, I think that there would be far more accidental shootings in those circumstances than actual effective self defence.

With your admittedly limited experience with firearms, I'm going to suggest that I know a bit more about the subject of firearm effectiveness than you do.

However, this is a subject upon which I've commented from time to time regarding gun control in the USA. Many of the people who are for gun control don't know the first thing about them. I've heard defense attorneys ask police officers on the stand why they didn't shoot the gun from their client's hand instead of shooting him in the chest. When people are ignorant about a subject, they probably don't have reasonable ideas about what should be done with regard to that subject.

I'm going to shock you again here, but our intruders rarely kill. Steal, yes. But kill? This is not America. Yes, it does happen, but in most instances I can remember it is due to criminal involvement (on the part of the victim), or one or two instances of wealthy people being targeted.... and you'd think they could afford proper security!

First, clearly our man here was attacked. So what rarely happens doesn't mean much to me, this is what happened. Second, if a person breaks into my home and attacks me, I'm going to assume he means to kill me. Assuming he does NOT mean to kill me strikes me as insanely poor decision-making skills. Third, it's a shame that wealthy people can afford security systems, but poor people are denied the one equalizing weapon that could save their lives - a firearm. I can't comment on violent crime in Australia, but I know for a fact that in the USA, violent crime disproportionately affects the very poor.

So your alarmist skewing of my post really is again a moot point, you know.

I offer my opinion. It hasn't changed. I backed my opinion with the facts as I see them.

The relative risk and cultural approach to criminal behaviour does change from place to place, Bill, and I feel that you know that. The types of crimes are different in one area to another, the levels criminals go to is different, the responces from the public are different, the punishments and laws are different. Really, you know that.

I know that when a person breaks down my door and attacks me, I'm in justifiable fear of my life. Statistics mean little when you are confronted with a violent criminal. Taking steps to address the real threat is much more sensible than taking steps to address a threat based on the statistics. If the latter were smart, it would be a good idea to play golf in the rain; after all, the statistics say that relatively few people are struck by lightning. A smart person might consider their own well-being rather than the relative chances that they'd be injured.

And looking at the Australian situation without taking into account the Australian approach, viewpoint, understanding, mentality, and so on is not rational. It's demonstative of an inability to look beyond your own understanding. Without being able to look at things from an Australian point of view, you really aren't in a position to start commenting the way you are. Broad brush-strokes of "home invaders are universal" doesn't do you any credit, as there are too many differences even within the same culture, let alone another one.

A threat to my life is a threat to my life. It does not matter if I am in Australia, the USA, or on the moon. Yes, it is indeed universal at the point where it stops being theoretical and actually happens. This actually happened. That's as universal as it gets.

Hey, it works. Have you thought that the individual arms race that seems to happen in the US simply makes the criminals their upgrade their weaponry to handle the firearms the homeowners their targeting now have? So the homeowners now upgrade what they have? And so on... and so on.... and so on..... We've seen that on a large scale, might as well accept that it didn't work there (how close did the world come to being the victim of the nuclear arms race?), and it isn't working for you on a small scale either.

So criminals now carry machine guns routinely in the USA, since many American law-abiding citizens are armed? Uh, no.

There are reasons the US has such a high fatality rate when it comes to firearms.

Yes, there are. We have a lot of guns. And a history of being a gun-owning populace. And criminals who don't have much respect for human life.

And disarming the civilian populace is going to stop that somehow?

But I digress. I have a firearm in the USA precisely because if someone breaks into my house and attacks me, I want the means to defend myself available, which to me means a firearm. I'm not at all interested in lowering the number of guns available in the USA, nor in playing a theoretical game where I disarm, therefore the guy who kicks my door in is magically not armed now either. And when it comes to my door being kicked in, well as I said, it doesn't much matter where I'm living. The language of criminal violence is universal.

Really, Bill, that is far too vague. The simple answer is that I'd fight back, most typically by closing and clinching if I couldn't see what was going on, and "feeling" my way from there... but there are again far too many variables. Unless you were in the room, you don't know if he needed a gun, or if you would have needed one either.

So you'd fight back, would you? And if he overmatched you? If you were small, or confined to a wheelchair, or very old? I guess you'd just die, then, eh?

I'd prefer not to die, and I'm not interested in matching my martial arts skills against a man who has just broken into my home. I am interested in survival and nothing else.

Your question is loaded, you are giving two options, use a gun, or meekly let them bash your head in. The world just isn't that black and white, and again, you know it. The real answer is "neither".

Let's hope your skills are sufficient to protect you, then. I prefer to have a gun in my hand in such situations.

Again, the article only says "assaulted with an unknown weapon", you're leaping to a necessarily lethal intent and action.

Yes, I am. That's a primary tenet of self-defense. If a person breaks into my home and assaults me, they are presumed to be intending great bodily harm or death. It is not my problem to prove that they are there to kill me. It is correct to presume that to be true.

And if it's a lethal intent and action, then you know that we would say that lethal responce is warranted. But we do not have those details, the reason for the invasion is not disclosed, there is nothing to suggest that it was intent for anything other than scare or steal. To be "assaulted with an unknown weapon" could be a rod inserted somewhere unpleasant, you know.... or anything else.

Doesn't matter.

The situation is not clearly stated.

Clearly enough.

And, as you well know, reasonable force is not decided by those involved at the time, it's decided by the court who hears the case.

So true. And if it turns out that I have used deadly force incorrectly, I will stand trial for it. I will, however, be alive. If I assume that I do not have the right to defend myself with deadly force and am killed, then show me the court that can return my life to me.

So what you think here is largely irrelevant as well (in terms of it not mattering whether they are intending to kill you or not, you'll react as if they are), as if the opposition lawyers can demonstrate that the intent was not lethal injury, or even anything close, and you pull a gun, things won't turn out well for you.

What I think is *all* that is relevant to deciding where I want to live, which is my entire premise and opinion.

Again, you're introducing aspects that are simply not present. Who says there was a sudden kicking in of a door? Who says that it's not a silent picking of a lock? Who says the "assault with an unknown weapon" isn't just a rope used to try to tie him up and gag him if he woke up? Really, Bill, the article gives none of the details you seem to be basing your entire argument on.

Let's revisit:

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.

Two men broke in. How did they break in? I admit, I don't know. But they proceeded to 'assault' the victim with an 'uknown object'. I will admit that I am presuming the assault was not something like tickling him with a feather duster. I am assuming if they had 'tied him with a rope', the report would say 'tied up' instead of 'assault' and 'rope' instead of 'unknown object'. But I think those are pretty reasonable assumptions. In any case, if I am asleep in my home (which I would be at 2300) and two men came into my house, I would not wait to be assaulted by a feather duster, a rubber chicken, or a tire iron before defending myself. And I think to wait to be assaulted so one could see how 'deadly' the assault was likely to be would be incredibly foolish.

As for logical or not, that's again not the issue. You're attributing conscious decision making where it doesn't exist.

I do not need to know what decision the criminals have come to. All I need to know is that they have broken into my house and are assaulting me. No other information needed to defend myself with deadly force.

No, Bill, you're basing your premise on a single, isolated, rare instance, where you are adding in details that don't exist in the story itself to support your position, and ignoring the realities of the situation. It is entirely theoretical, as the situation you are describing does not exist in any of the stories that have been brought up.

The situation occurred. Period.

I have huge respect for Karate, and Isshin Ryu, but you missed the point of it then. There are much better, faster, more effective, and far more reliable ways of attaining that goal.

In addition to not knowing much about guns, then, you also don't know much about me. If I say that I study martial arts primarily for self-defense, then that is what I mean. You're not going to get very far alleging that I don't mean that at all. I think I know my own mind, thanks.

Are there better self-defense systems? I don't know, but I'm sure it's possible. However, this is the one I choose to study, and I do so primarily to learn empty-handed self-defense. The best self-defense system I own is between my ears. Next on the list is the time I spend on the firing range.

Actually, that's not so much an assumption, it's based on the dominant methods of attack and assault with a bladed weapon, and understanding what is needed for surviving such a situation, as well as understanding what is involved in retrieving a firearm when required, such as the distance and time required. A barrier is better, as is distance. I'd be more confident of going unarmed against a knife (against a common knife assault) than trying to get to a firearm in such circumstances. Note, this is not a case of someone pulling a knife from a distance and trying to threaten you, I'm talking about actual knife assaults here. Close quarters against a gun, knife wins.

From the man who admittedly doesn't know much about guns.

You say you are glad you don't live here as you wouldn't be allowed to have a gun for the express purpose of self protection. Not that you couldn't have a gun, as you can, but that you couldn't claim that as your reason when applying for a licence.

I am also not in the habit of lying to get what I want. I don't hunt any more, and I tend to doubt that I'd be granted a hunting permit for a 1911 Colt A1 pistol, eh?

You have ignored this by claiming that a single, isolated incident, with no supporting details for your case, proves that things happen here. Here's the thing, though, once is an anomaly. Twice is a co-incidence. You'll need three times for a pattern to begin and for you to have a case. Preferably close together geographically, chronologically, etc.

The news article was all I needed to confirm the truth; a person may not legally own a firearm for the stated purpose of self-defense in Australia. I don't know how many situations you require before the law becomes more clear, but to me, that is sufficient for me to understand the law. And I find it unacceptable; I would not live there on that basis and no other. How many cases do I need before I am allowed to draw that opinion, please?

You have since taken this in every direction you can other than seeing that, if you were living in Australia, the very reasons you want the gun don't exist. Making the need, or reasons given for possessing such a weapon utterly irrelevant.

I have done nothing but answer questions by people who seem to think that I am against the law in Australia, that I think the USA is better than Australia, that Australians are wrong to not want to own guns for self-defense, and everything else other than what I originally stated, which was simple - since Australia doesn't allow a person to own a gun legally for purpose of self-defense, I would not want to live there. Instead of a statement of opinion, many have chosen to see this as a personal attack on Australia. It isn't. Go Australia! But I won't live there.

Is that about it?

Up to youse guys. I'm just responding to statements that show people aren't really developing those critical reading skills.