# Oh, for fuck's sake. Are you gonna ban rocks next? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 18, 2003, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-for-fucks-sake-are-you-gonna-ban-rocks-next/195971 "2003-08-18T14:51:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-for-fucks-sake-are-you-gonna-ban-rocks-next/195971/81 "2003-08-19T17:04:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Great Unwashed \* > \*\ ***Neurotic** , **catsix** what did **Airman Doors** mean when he said > > At the ready for what?\*\* So one guy is an accurate reflection of a nation of 280 million? Fascinating statistical methods you guys use over there in the old world. > [@](#): > > **Are you pretending that “self-defence in the home” is not one of the arguments propounded by the pro-gun lobby? Why would there be such a need if there wasn’t the perception of an identifiable risk?** Of course there’s an identifiable risk. Are you saying there are no burglaries or murders in the UK? The risk, however, is a low one. Do you have a fire extinguisher in your home? Do you really expect to have to use it? Same thing with a gun. I might have one just in case, but I don’t really feel I’ll ever have to use it. When I go backpacking, I have emergency food supplies. I don’t expect to have to use it, but it’s nice to have it just in case. It doesn’t make me paranoid. And in any case, self defense in the home is indeed an argument put forth by gun rights advocates. It is, however, still a statistically small reason for most gun owners to own a gun. > [@](#): > > \*\*Do you not also see the paradox that if one feels obliged to arm oneself for self defence and one calls this “liberty”? \*\* While not actually addressed to me, I fail to see the paradox. Again, most people don’t feel obliged to arm themselves for self-defense. And even if they did, it still wouldn’t be a paradox. Wouldn’t there be a paradox between “liberty” and being forced to rely on others for your needs? ---
**Author:** ![gex\_gex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/94ad74/32.png) [@gex\_gex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gex_gex)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-for-fucks-sake-are-you-gonna-ban-rocks-next/195971/82 "2003-08-19T17:06:07Z")
Well, I love to criticise US gun laws, so I can’t really complain when an American criticises ours. That said, **Airman Doors USAF** , I think the proposed legislation is perfectly reasonable and, indeed, desirable. These are dangerous weapons with little uses outside of killing people. People that wish to use these weapons (collectors, sportspeople) for legitimate purposes may do so, according to the article sicted in your OP. Outside of that, the only reason I could imagine for someone wishing to own these weapons is for self-defence against home invasion. These weapons aren’t really useful in this context, aren’t widely used for this purpose (if at all) currently, and would probably be just as dangerous to the home-owner as it would be to the home invader. The only effect this legislation will have is to prevent kids being hacked to bits by swords or being shot with crossbow bolts. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Uzi_ > Interesting. So, despite the buy up of weapons the crime rate has remained the same. Then why bother wasting money on legislation and confiscating weapons? If you are no safer now than you were before why deprive gun owners of something they might have enjoyed? It seems pretty obvious that they weren’t hurting anyone with their hobby/choice if the numbers haven’t changed. From the Snopes article: > [@](#): > > In the latter case, it should be noted that the Australia-wide percentage of homicides committed with firearms is now lower than it was before the gun buy-back program, and lower than it has been at any point during the past ten years. (In the former case, the absolute number of firearm homicides in Australia in 1998-99 was the lowest in the past ten years.) However, perhaps more importantly, the Snopes article also notes: > [@](#): > > The main point to be learned here is that determining the effect of changes in Australia’s gun ownership laws and the government’s firearm buy-back program on crime rates requires a complex long-term analysis and can’t be discerned from the small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics offered here. And no matter what the outcome of that analysis, the results aren’t necessarily applicable to the USA, where laws regarding gun ownership are (and always have been) much different than those in Australia. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by UnwrittenNocturne_ > [Criminals here can fairly regularly be armed. Self-defense is, to all intents and purposes, illegal. Harming a criminal in the act of a crime is illegal and will result in prosecution. I cannot cite tis but it happened here in Tassie quite recently. This is bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-for-fucks-sake-are-you-gonna-ban-rocks-next/195971/83 "2003-08-19T17:25:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Neurotik \* > \*\*So one guy is an accurate reflection of a nation of 280 million? Fascinating statistical methods you guys use over there in the old world. Ermm you’re doing the exact same fucking thing in that statement. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-for-fucks-sake-are-you-gonna-ban-rocks-next/195971/84 "2003-08-19T17:30:06Z")
For those who are citing Snopes as an authority on gun control, and with due respect to Barb and David, whose diligent hobby of maintaining their site is greatly appreciated by us all, there are legitimate think tanks and academicians who interpret the metadata much differently — [The Cato Institute](http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa400.pdf), for example. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-for-fucks-sake-are-you-gonna-ban-rocks-next/195971/85 "2003-08-19T17:48:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yojimbo \* > \*\*Ermm you’re doing the exact same fucking thing in that statement. \*\* Ermm, no, I’m not doing the exact same fucking thing in that statement. See, **Unwashed** was using one single person’s example as proof of his generalizations. Which, as we all know, is ridiculous. I was using one person’s example to show the ridiculousness of his statement. There is difference between a sarcastic jab and a serious assertion of proof. Let’s use our heads a bit here, shall we? ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-for-fucks-sake-are-you-gonna-ban-rocks-next/195971/86 "2003-08-19T17:51:37Z")
I understand the concept that lives are more important than property, certainly I wouldn’t advocate shooting a car thief, it’s simply when an intruder is in your home, I think the posibility of injury or death to your family is much higher. As I said, I’ve seen it talked about, perhaps, as The Great Unwashed said, it’s one of those things that “everybody knows” which turns out not to be accurate if one looks at the data. I suppose I’d need to see cites before making up my mind. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_The\_Diver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Buck\_The\_Diver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_The_Diver)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-for-fucks-sake-are-you-gonna-ban-rocks-next/195971/87 "2003-08-19T19:00:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > \*\* I’d be guessing that the concept is that “property is worth less than human life”. and here in the US the same holds true in quite a few instances - if you see a theif stealing your car often it’s not ‘ok’ to take your shotgun out and shoot the guy. \*\* Unless you are in Texas after the sun goes down. From _The Texas Penal Code_: > [@](#): > > Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: > ~ ~ (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and > ~ ~ (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: > ~ ~ ~ (A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-for-fucks-sake-are-you-gonna-ban-rocks-next/195971/88 "2003-08-19T19:11:33Z")
**Buck** hence my “In quite a few instances”. **Weirddave** if you were familiar w/the concept that for some property is less valuable than human, why are you surprised that in some places you can get in legal trouble for harming people who are attempting to steal from you? ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-for-fucks-sake-are-you-gonna-ban-rocks-next/195971/89 "2003-08-19T19:37:53Z")
> [@](#): > > If (and it’s a big if) the State government is taking account of what the majority of the people want, then they’re doing the democratic thing? You’re missing the “protection of the minority” element that is integral to democracy. Unless the sword owners of Australia suddenly go collectively mad and start chopping people up willy-nilly it is just downright silly to pass a law banning the ownership of such weapons based on the criminal actions of ONE disturbed individual. Punish him accordingly and leave the rest of the law-abiding populace alone. Nutcases who are hellbent on committing violence will do so no matter what you do. Ban boxcutters and they’ll use fountain pens. Ban swords and they’ll use steak knives. Or to put it another way, will the people in Victoria who live next door to this guy once he is paroled feel safer once they ban swords? ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-for-fucks-sake-are-you-gonna-ban-rocks-next/195971/90 "2003-08-19T19:45:01Z")
Except protection of the minority only applies if there is a law or constitutional provision protecting the minority. Hence, in the US, one can plausibly argue that gun owners or sword owners or whatever have a legal right to own weapons. If no such provision exists in Australian law, then lawmakers are freely allowed to ban them. Indeed, if the majority of their constituency feels that they should and the law will not have a severe adverse effect on the community, I would say the lawmaker has an _obligation_ to vote to ban the weapons. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-for-fucks-sake-are-you-gonna-ban-rocks-next/195971/91 "2003-08-19T20:04:01Z")
> [@](#): > > At the ready for what? Well, I don’t keep my fire extinguisher buried in storage in the garage, because in the highly unlikely event that there is a fire in, say, my kitchen, I’d like to be able to get to it and use it to put the fire out. Along the same lines, when I lived in an area were break-ins were common, where the East End Rapist was climbing through bedroom windows and raping women in their own beds, I didn’t keep my pistol disassembled in a combination lock vault. I kept it where I would be able to get to it in the unlikely event that my window got picked. As the case was, the East End Rapist did not break into my apartment, but someone else did. I’ll never know if that person would have killed or raped me because I brandished my pistol and he ran away. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-for-fucks-sake-are-you-gonna-ban-rocks-next/195971/92 "2003-08-19T20:17:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*With due respect, why is the pursuit of one’s happiness through gaming and sports not sufficient “legitimate” use? \*\* a) Not my words that you’re taking issue with, so I’m not sure why you’re addressing me. b) Meaning can easily be inferred from context here. I’ll leave that as an exercise to the reader. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-for-fucks-sake-are-you-gonna-ban-rocks-next/195971/93 "2003-08-19T21:18:48Z")
RT > [@](#): > > a) Not my words that you’re taking issue with, so I’m not sure why you’re addressing me. With due respect, I’m addressing you because you cited the words in making your point. > [@](#): > > Meaning can easily be inferred from context here. I’ll leave that as an exercise to the reader. Alas, I am too old for jumping jacks. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-for-fucks-sake-are-you-gonna-ban-rocks-next/195971/94 "2003-08-19T21:54:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > \*\*Did you read your own link? > > Irrespective of whether it makes any sense to ban samurai swords and crossbows in one or more Australian provinces, excessive exaggeration in a manner that contradicts one’s own sources undermines one’s argument/rant. \*\* Sure did. And in that link I noticed that “samurai swords” is not spelled “machetes”. In what way did I undermine my own argument? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mullets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/aeb1de/32.png) [@John\_Mullets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mullets)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-for-fucks-sake-are-you-gonna-ban-rocks-next/195971/95 "2003-08-19T22:09:46Z")
**Catsix** , I’m not even going to dignify you post with a response. Suffice to say, you aren’t half as witty as you seem to believe. > [@](#): > > True. Honestly, though, I think that people are just following an NRA line. Or are afraid that if their response to the question of why they have a gun is for sport, or just the heck of it, that won’t be “good enough” for the gun control advocate. So they attempt to give it a higher purpose. If they’re just following an NRA line, wouldn’t that mean they lack independent thought? Great, now we’ve got a bunch of morons with guns. And if they truely are as scared about murderers/rapists/thieves/etc as they say, that means we have a bunch of paranoid morons with guns, right? Well, sorry to say America, but you’re buggered. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-for-fucks-sake-are-you-gonna-ban-rocks-next/195971/96 "2003-08-19T22:32:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > \*\ ***Weirddave** if you were familiar w/the concept that for some property is less valuable than human, why are you surprised that in some places you can get in legal trouble for harming people who are attempting to steal from you? \*\* Because I don’t buy it as an absolute, depending on the behavior of the thief. If someone is breaking into my house, they are acting agressively towards me in an attempt to steal my stuff. In my mind, that’s reason enough to shoot them. If they are stealing my car from the driveway-no, that’s not reason enough to shoot them, because it’s not agressive behavior towards me, I am in no direct danger. If they are in my house, however, how far do I have to go to ensure that they don’t want my stuff more than they don’t want to hurt or kill me? Do I have to wait until I get shot before using force is justified, or can I shoot the intruder when I confront him and he makes a sudden move insted of putting his hands up? ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-for-fucks-sake-are-you-gonna-ban-rocks-next/195971/97 "2003-08-19T22:47:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mullets \* > And if they truely are as scared about murderers/rapists/thieves/etc as they say, that means we have a bunch of paranoid morons with guns, right? Well, sorry to say America, but you’re buggered. \*\* I think the label ‘paranoid’ fits much, much better for people like you who live in abject terror of what you think a group that’s statistically far more law-abiding than average (legal gun owners) is going to do to you. “Oh my gosh, he owns something I’ve got an irrational fear of. Quick, let’s ban it!” certainly sounds like a paranoid moron to me. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-for-fucks-sake-are-you-gonna-ban-rocks-next/195971/98 "2003-08-19T22:59:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mullets \* > \*\*If they’re just following an NRA line, wouldn’t that mean they lack independent thought? Great, now we’ve got a bunch of morons with guns. > > And if they truely are as scared about murderers/rapists/thieves/etc as they say, that means we have a bunch of paranoid morons with guns, right? Well, sorry to say America, but you’re buggered. \*\* :rolleyes: At least we can always count on the Australian government to do our bidding. What’s it like being a lapdog? ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-for-fucks-sake-are-you-gonna-ban-rocks-next/195971/99 "2003-08-19T23:10:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weirddave \* > \*\*Because I don’t buy it as an absolute, depending on the behavior of the thief. If someone is breaking into my house, they are acting agressively towards me in an attempt to steal my stuff. In my mind, that’s reason enough to shoot them. If they are stealing my car from the driveway-no, that’s not reason enough to shoot them, because it’s not agressive behavior towards me, I am in no direct danger. If they are in my house, however, how far do I have to go to ensure that they don’t want my stuff more than they don’t want to hurt or kill me? Do I have to wait until I get shot before using force is justified, or can I shoot the intruder when I confront him and he makes a sudden move insted of putting his hands up? \*\* I still don’t get your question in the first place. You may not ‘buy’ it as an absolute, and often the laws agree with you. However, you admit that you **know** that in many places, one can get in legal trouble for physically attacking a theif depending on the circumstances. If you were genuinely curious about their local laws, I’m sure you could have come up with a more generalized and less inflamatory wayc way of asking the question than : > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by\*\*Weiddave_Can someone explain this to me, because I am at a complete loss to understand it. What kind of a society is it where the criminal has more rights than the law abiding citizen? ( yes, I mean more. Aparently, the criminal has the right to break in and steal your stuff without coming to harm, but you don’t have the right to stop him if he’s hurt in the process ). What is the logic behind it? \*\*, couldn’t you? ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2003, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-for-fucks-sake-are-you-gonna-ban-rocks-next/195971/100 "2003-08-19T23:22:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Neurotik \* > \*\*:rolleyes: > > At least we can always count on the Australian government to do our bidding. What’s it like being a lapdog? \*\* OK, on second thought I feel bad about saying that as I don’t really feel that way about Australia. It was just the cheapest shot I could think of at the moment. Sorry. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-for-fucks-sake-are-you-gonna-ban-rocks-next/195971.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-for-fucks-sake-are-you-gonna-ban-rocks-next/195971.md?page=6)