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.
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.
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?
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.
From the Snopes article:
However, perhaps more importantly, the Snopes article also notes:
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, for example.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 :
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.
