Fine, thanks. I didn’t ask for an apology. I asked what he meant by “country”. Which people?
Lib, do you actually have a point, or are you just bored to the extent where nitpicking to this extent seems like a valid debating tactic?
As stated previously, it’s my understanding that this policy enjoys the support of an overwhelming majority of the people of Australia. If this is incorrect, I would welcome cites showing me my error. If however it is correct, I would welcome a handy phrase to use instead of “the country of Australia” or “the people of the country of Australia” just so I don’t have to endure this level of fucking sophistry.
hawthorne, you’re an old Trinity student? What graduating year? (2000 MLC here, although I know a couple of Trinity boys)
As much as I hate the phrase, Australia does not have a “gun culture” - the gun recall after the Port Arthur massacre affected exactly 0% of the people I know. It would be as if hand powered rocket launchers (do these exist?) were withdrawn in the US. You know it must inconvenience some people, and you’re aware that the legislation has reduced your freedom to purchase hand powered rocket launchers, but since you’ve never considered owning one, and you’ve never even seen one in real life, it has no impact. People who need hand powered rocket launchers can still get them and everyone else somehow manages without.
Ahh, but I don’t necessarily have to wait for him to actually put his hands around my neck before I filet his innards with my broadsword. His mere presence in my home, and perceived threat of bodily harm, could very well be sufficient grounds for me to successfully claim self defense.
You call him a burglar. The second he moves one centimeter towards me or towards my children, he becomes a potential murderer or rapist.
Lesson 3: Stick him with Mr. Pointy if you’d like. Just make sure it’s not in the back.
Thank you for expressing your wish that I get laid.
At what point did I make any assertation whatsoever? I simply asked for information. By the way, I’m female. I’m quite happy with the fact that I don’t have a dick at all.
Wanting more information makes me an Aussie hater? Do you always over-react this much, or is it only when you’re screaming at an American?
I’m confused by all this talk of liberty – is it just me or do many Americans seem to be afraid in their own homes? Is that liberty?
Maybe a better solution than arming yourselves to the teeth might be in the prevention of crime. The well-observed correlation between poverty and crime might be a good place to start.
Many Americans, Unwashed? Sure. Most Americans? Probably not. For the past 50 years, the percentage of households owning guns has held steady in the US at around 50%. About 21% own a handgun, meaning the majority of guns are long guns, which probably aren’t kept for self-defense, but more hunting, sport shooting, vermin control in rural areas, etc.
Of course, not all of those 21% of households keep a gun for home self-defense. Households with a law enforcement officer in them would also have a gun. For example, my roommate is a police officer so we have a gun in the house. But it’s not there because we are afraid of crime in the house, as it is kept unloaded and locked in a case with a trigger lock when my roomie is off-duty so it would be mostly useless. Another exampe would be an ex-gf whose father was an IRS agent. They had a gun in the house, but it was kept unloaded in a case and never taken out except when her father needed once in a blue moon, or had to go in for practice.
So to conclude - most Americans don’t feel the need to keep a gun for self-defense. We aren’t afraid in our own homes. But I can see how you might get that idea from the ridiculous caricatures painted in European media on the subject.
Well I’ve had guns in my house my entire life, and I certainly am not afraid of a burglary.
I’ve got a fire extinguisher too, but I’m not living in terror that my house might burn down.
The guns are there for my amusement: going to the range and shooting. The fact that they could also (and one was once used) to remove a burglar from my house is a pleasant side-effect.
Or indeed the arguments that pro-gun US people in this thread have put forward - i.e. you need them to defend yourself.
I am simply curious, as I have seen similar statements posted in various threads, primarilaly from European dopers, all of them mentioning quite matter of factly that it was illegal to resist or harm a criminal while he was in the act of commiting a crime, and the general feeling about this seems to be that of a giant shrug, a simple “that’s-the-way-things-are” acceptance, sometimes tinged with “That’s-one-way-in-which-we-are-superior-to-Americans” smugness ( rarely, but it’s there occasionally )
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?
Unwashed, I’d like to shore up Neurotik’s post.
Many Americans keep a gun for protection, but most Americans who own guns own rifles. Rifles and Shotguns aren’t very good for defense in a confined area like a living room, so those who only own long guns probably don’t have them for self-defense. In fact, I think the majority of people who own long guns in America at this point have inherited them, as I did.
It used to be easy to go out and go hunting, or target shooting in the country…but now there’s nowhere to go shooting, so most of us don’t go out and buy rifles…our Fathers and Grandfathers passed away and left us with many rifles.
I own many long guns, and several handguns. They aren’t for protection, Per Se, but if need be could be. They’re kept unloaded and pretty much only come out when I go to the range which is once in a Blue Moon. I have loads for them, defense loads, even…but with crime rates as low as they are in my area, I’m pretty sure the loads will go bad before I use them.
So no, with all this talk of “liberty”, most Americans aren’t shaking in their boots, armed to the teeth waiting for Armageddon. We simply view gun ownership as a fundamental right.
Sam
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.
Or, like catsix said, keep one like they do a fire extinguisher. It’s nice to have, but you don’t really expect to ever have to use it.
The idea of nationwide crime paranoia in the US is fairly inaccurate.
Weirddave 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.
You know, this is as painful to read as the OP.
Can both sides stop the nonsensical caricaturing on this issue?
Weirddave, it differs from legislation to legislation, but usually comes down to a definition of “reasonable force”, which is decided in the court. Behind it is a philosophy that says that property is less valuable than human life, no matter which human we’re talking about.
These are all hypothetical examples, and I may be slightly out, but as far as I know:
If someone’s broken into my house and isn’t threatening me, if I can restrain them (say, by whacking them and tying them with cuffs or rope) until the cops get there, then that’s OK. Though there is a possibility the crim might be able to sue me for injury.
If someone’s broken into my house and is threatening me, and I harm them, then I will have to prove the harm I did to them was in self defense.
If someone’s broken into my house and I kill them not in self-defense, then I have committed a crime, which I have to answer to in court.
Is it just me or do many Australians seem to be afraid to take responsibility for protecting their own lives and wish to mandate that no one be allowed to? Is that Liberty?
Many Americans wish to be able to do what they want in their own homes, including defending said home from an attacker in the unlikely event that someone breaks in. It’s as much motivated by ‘fear’ as keeping a flashlight around is motivated by ‘fear’ of a blackout or storm, keeping a fire extinguisher around is motivated by a ‘fear’ of fire, or keeping food and water handy is motivated by a ‘fear’ of a storm or other disaster. I think that showing ‘fear’ in the sense of ‘preparing for a potential bad event’ is a whole lot better way to live than showing ‘fear’ in the sense of ‘I’m scared of that object, no one should be allowed to own one!’.
Certainly, liberty is being free of restrictions that are not imposed for good reason, and I certainly don’t think that phobias are a good reason to impose any restrictions.
As soon as you start pressing to put the same restrictions on your political elite that ordinary people must endure, I’ll listen to your advice. I’m not going to hold my breath for Australia to enact legislation that forbids politicians and their bodyguards from carrying guns in any way that subjects can’t, though.
Neurotic, catsix what did Airman Doors mean when he said
At the ready for what?
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?
Weirddave, the thing is, when you come to ask for citations, very few (a vanishingly small percentage) of these alleged cases of home-owners or mugging-victims being prosecuted for using self-defence turn out to have any validity (including the Tony Martin case, which I believe we have discussed before).
You gotta get your info from somewhere other than the tabloids, who bent on one moral panic after another have been selling us the lie that society has been going down the tubes for one reactionary reason or another ever since the 60s.
Gary Kumquat, go fuck yourself, all right? What caricaturing am I guilty of? Do you not also see the paradox that if one feels obliged to arm oneself for self defence and one calls this “liberty”?
FTR, I don’t own any gun, nor do I own swords or crossbows. My back door is open as we speak cause it’s beautiful outside. Do I live in fear? Nope. (Of course, I do have Buddy the Beagle as my protector. Assuming any intruder doesn’t have chicken nuggets… his allegiance does tend to waver around poultry. )
I think what rankles a lot of people about the banning of swords and crossbows in Victoria is that it punishes an entire populace for the stupid, reckless actions of exactly two individuals. Is THAT liberty? Shouldn’t we all enjoy the liberty of, say, collecting swords if that’s our pleasure, provided we cause no one else any harm? To ban ALL swords because some drunk college student tried to lop the arm off another hapless partygoer is like nuking Iraq in order to kill Saddam Hussein.
Gary
With due respect, I was neither nitpicking nor debating. I was asking a question.
By “country”, I thought you might have meant “government”. I only wanted to know what you meant. And so I asked.
I don’t blame you for getting upset. A lot of times, I find that what someone has understood from me is not the same as what was in my head when I was typing. It is infuriating, isn’t it.
Now, the original statement carries a quite different connotation without the anthropomorphized reference. There is an apparent contradiction between its first clause and its second. Rather than “to each their own” as stated in the first clause, the second clause suggests that it is more like “to every individual that of the majority”.
You’re neglecting the fact that samurai sword collectors are in a minority of a population (that’s an assumption, but I’d imagine a correct one). 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? After the Dunblane massacre in Scotland, according to the polls I read at the time, the majority of the UK favoured the banning of hand-guns. A significant minority opposed it as a knee-jerk reaction, but they were a minority, and the ban passed. AFAIK, they got over it. Or are we getting into “tyrrany of the majority” territory, here?