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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_Australian_spiders
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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
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..."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.
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 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.
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.
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:
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.
Mate, I might agree with you .... but .... Shhhh! Talk like that gets you into a lot of trouble on this forum.You have too many guns in your community.
The person who was arrested did.
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.
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.
That's the thing, Bill, he didn't. All the article says is that he was assaulted with an unknown weapon:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'?
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.
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.
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.
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?"
Is the concept of deadly force really that different there from what it is here?
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....
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!
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!
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?
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).
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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?
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.
I am basing my premise upon an actual incident. It's not made-up, nor is it theoretical.
Martial arts are not merely for self-defense, but that is their primary function. It's certainly one of the biggest reasons I train.
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.
Seems quite logical to me. And that precludes the use of a firearm how?
Google News.
Would you care to repeat your assertion that homeowners don't have time to use their guns anyway?
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, 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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
As for logical or not, that's again not the issue. You're attributing conscious decision making where it doesn't exist.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?