are you serious? where in the hell do you get “sounds like you’re saying you have to hold the door open” from my post?
Various jurisdicitions have varying standards of allowable force. as a very general rule, though, for example, average person isn’t allowed to use deadly to stop a theif from taking a CD, however, again depending on jurisdictions etc, the threat of physical violence from another can justify the use of force.
but no where is one required to ‘assist’ the theif, nor did I even imply such a thing. :rolleyes:
See, I don’t get this. Maybe it’s just a cultural divide.
First of all, how do you know you’ve never known a private hand gun owner? It’s not like they have the mark of Cain branded on their foreheads.
Second, I’m not sure how “handgun” achieved the same level of depravity as “kiddie porn” or “KKK literature”. Kiddie porn, for instance, requires the harming of an individual to manufacture. KKK materials advocate harming others. Handguns, however, are tools. From my viewpoint, it’s like freaking out because you discovered the neighbor owns a table saw. Yes, table saws are potentially horribly dangerous or even deadly, but the average table saw owner is a responsible human being using the tool for constructive purposes. Likewise, most folks I know who own handguns use them for recreational target shooting or are members of professions - such as law enforcement - where they are required to own guns (although most cops go entire careers without shooting anyone, even in the depraved ol’ US of A)
Third, there ARE instances where “self defense” or employement requirements as a argument for gun ownership are valid. As mentioned, law enforcement in this country is required to own weapons. Certain types of security guards carry weapons. My husband once held a courier job that required him to carry a gun. In rural areas guns have a role, although not necessarially handguns, and in certain less settled areas (such as Alaska) there is the question of local wildlife. (And that’s entirely leaving out the military) To regard someone who’s job requires them to carry firearms as on the level of kiddie porn collectors and KKK members strikes me as over the top.
Um, yes, actually in the United States the Second Amendment to the Constitution - our basic framework of government - DOES mention a right to bear arms. It’s not something new we dreamed up last week, we’ve had it in writing since the 1780s. Although it would have been nice if the Founding Fathers had elaborated a bit more on the concept for clarification, it is very clear that in THIS country there IS a right to “bear arms”, and anyone who’s read other writings by the guys who wrote the Constitution can plainly see that they meant “guns” when they spoke of “arms”.
Australia, of course, was founded in a very different manner and, of course, may have very different laws regarding this. Including a lack of a right of its citizenry to own guns.
I’m a Kiwi, not an Ozzie, but our general viewpoint on guns appears more similar that that of many Americans. (Hell, even our uniformed cops don’t carry guns – unlike the Ozzie ones).
Personally I don’t have an axe to grind here – I don’t even have an axe, although as an SCAer I do have a fair number of pointy objects around the house (many for eating with) – and know people who do have guns (sport pistol shooters and black powder enthusiasts), and I think your table saw analogy isn’t bad.
Speaking purely from personal experience, the only time I have felt weirded out in the US was in a big sporting goods store in Iowa (Coral Ridge Mall) with its rack upon rack of long guns and cabinet after cabinet of pistols. I can’t describe the feeling exactly, beyond the imprecise “freaked” and I can only put it down to a touch of culture shock; I think this might be what Eolbo is describing.
On the flip side, while living in Iowa, I learnt to pistol shoot – across the river in Illinois – as a fellow Kiwi I was working with was an ex-cop and pistol shooter. The first time was a little nerve wracking (having never even touched a gun before – other than a BB gun). But after a bit it felt more familiar and I really enjoyed it.
So yes, tools… potentially dangerous tools, and unfamiliar to many of us downunder, and for myself I would argue there is a cultural divide that makes the opposing viewpoints harder to understand.
PS: catsix, I meant to say this earlier:
Cultural divide or no, difference of viewpoint or no, it doesn’t excuse the impoliteness of the unwarranted attack made upon you earlier in this thread for requesting information.
Australians are allowed to own guns, though certain types of firearms have been banned. Guns must be individually registered to their licensed owners. According to the 2003 Small Arms Survey, there are an estimated 2.1 million firearms in private ownership in Australia, which ranks us among the world’s most heavily armed citizens. That equates to one privately-owned gun for every nine people, which surpasses the global ratio of just one gun for every 16 people.
Actually I think the table saw analogy is fucked. Completely and utterly. Just say I wanted to kill someone, or injure them or threaten them, would you see a table saw as a practical tool in that respect?
Would most criminals resist a person who tried to detain them? Yep, I’ve made arrests before working as a security guard after getting out of the army. They all resist. Why? Because I’m not a real big guy. They figure they can get away and try to. I wasn’t a cop, or had a weapon. I’ve had to put a few big guys on the ground hard because of that using more force than maybe stealing a can of pop warranted. Because even though it was only a can of pop, it was still a Break and Enter. So, if in the midst of detaining someone things escalate so that I have to use deadly force are you saying that I can’t use because he is stealing a soda pop? While I wouldn’t blow someone’s head off for stealing a pop, I certainly would if they tried to harm me which could certainly happen while in the course of detaining someone.
Now I at least have a chance in doing something about an unarmed opponent, but my girlfriend (5’2", 100lbs) certainly would not have that chance. If someone broke into our house when I was away, she would have to rely on the goodwill of the criminal and the speediness of the police. I’d much prefer she had something to equal the odds a bit in her favour even if all she does is hide in the closet until the police arrive.
Now say she can pick a bird off in flight with her pistol at 100 yards. Say she knows all the techniques of using a pistol in a combat situation. You are saying she can’t use that pistol in the defence of her property. She has no other physical means to detain the crook from stealing said property. So, in reality all she can do is sit there and watch as he carries stuff out the door. She might as well clear the kids toys out of the way so the crook doesn’t trip and sue for a dangerous work environment.
By saying a person can’t use whatever tools they can to defend themselves and their property you are in essence saying that only those big enough and strong enough can defend themselves and anyone bigger and stronger than you can do what they want to you and the stuff you own. Your only recourse is to call a teacher to protect you from the ‘Bully’. Anyone who has been on a school yard knows how that works.
Thank you for that vitriol, Princhester, it cetainly does help facilitate understanding between our two cultures.
Yes, there are practical difficulties in using a table saw to injure or kill one’s fellow human being, they’re not very portable. If I were to choose a carpentry tool for purposes of both protability and mayhem I’d have to saw there are many advantages to ordinary screwdriver. Other tools suitable for maiming and killing include hammers and chisels. Hacksaws and meatcleavers. Perhaps we should ban those?
The truth is that, I, personally, have never owned a gun. This has not stopped me from acting in my own defense, including “injuring” and “threatening” someone intent on harming me. I do not require a weapon to do either of those.
I view target shooting as no more hazardous to civilization than the practice of archery (modern hunting bows being every bit as powerful as rifles) or javelin throwing.
I don’t have problems with people hunting, target shooting, or carrying firearms if their jobs require them to do so.
I do have a problem with needlessly restricting law-abiding citizens because there are some bad characters out there.
Yes it is, and that was the intent of my post. In my reply here I have written a number of things that are in disagreement with your quoted views. I’m not doing this to argue with you, and indeed I have little interest in arguing with an american over guns as its a fruitless activity that founders upon that cultural divide. But I have given my views in response as just one illustration of how the same object is viewed so differently which is why the OP is rather meaningless in an Australian context.
You need to appreciate how very uncommon it is here to own a handgun. Of course there are handguns in this country and I may have met an owner without knowing, but the point is that its a very unusual thing here to own and I just haven’t known anyone to possess one.
A handgun is not a responsible or usual thing for someone to possess. Its a device with no purpose except to kill and prima facie disturbing. Note I’m not actually equating a gun with kiddy porn, but making a point that presentation of any three of these unsavoury items would put me outside my comfort zone. “Normal” people dont have handguns here.
Handguns are not a tool, they are a weapon designed to kill human beings. They have no useful purpose, they do not belong in the home and its irresponsible to keep them there.
I didn’t make that connection. Naturally police and security people may be armed here or anywhere else. That’s not what I am writing about though which was private ownership.
Yes, I understand your constitutional guarantee but it doesn’t hold sway here thank God. There is no such ‘right’ to bear arms, and the very notion is absurd . Why would we need a ‘right’ to own something we shouldn’t have anyway??? How silly!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Eolbo *
Handguns are not a tool, they are a weapon designed to kill human beings. They have no useful purpose, they do not belong in the home and its irresponsible to keep them there.
[quote]
Just a slight nitpick, they are a tool designed to kill many things, humans among them. Their specified purpose and use is in the killing of various animals, and humans. That’s a useful purpose. You may disagree with that, but to refer you back to my reply to Princhester, if someone wants to kill you, a hammer or knife will work just fine in the absence of a gun.
Yeah, our government says we’re not supposed to have chocolate after 8 PM, but we just don’t listen.
Copaesthetic, I’m inferring that you believe the Victorian gun policy to be nannying, is it any more nannying than other ownership restrictions? – for instance, your government says you’re not supposed to have marijuana after 8 PM (or before for that matter)?
I guess I could give a list of restrictions to ownership, and such restrictions are accepted, by most, in principle. What makes gun ownership “special” (except that it is apparently a “right” under your constitution)?
Broomstick what gives me the shits is not the basic argument that freedom is worth something and that if that has a cost in human life etc then so be it. I might not agree, but I could respect the argument
What I cannot respect is people kidding themselves about the nature of what we are talking about here. The hysterical contention that banning or limiting access to guns is some sort of slippery slope that means we will be banning hacksaws and table saws next.
When soldiers carry a hacksaw as their sidearm, when enraged citizens and schoolkids conduct deadly rampages with chisels, then maybe your analogy will be worth something. You can wriggle, you can writhe, you may even be right about the freedom thing but for fuck’s sake stop kidding yourself we are not talking about the most portable and effective personal killing tools ever invented.
Being a country boy I am very well aware that rifles and shotguns are much better weapons for animal control, they are more versatile, accurate and have greater range, and Australian farmers somehow manage to get by using them. Handguns are for killing people.
As for the oft-mentioned furphy that hammers and knives and whatnot are substitutes for firearms this has always been a feeble argument. While yes it is possible to kill someone with even your bare hands the reality is that firearms make the process much more certain, quick and efficient. That technological superiority is after all why we no longer send soldiers into battle with swords or bare hands, we have purpose built and vastly more efficient killing devices available, and to pretend that one is as good as the other is disingenuous. A twenty foot head start may save you from a homicidal maniac with a hammer.
… for fuck’s sake stop kidding yourself we are not talking about the most portable and effective personal killing tools ever invented, orders of magnitude and qualitatively different in terms of deadliness than anything else on the planet, let alone some bloody handtool.
Australian culture is amzingly similar to American (from what I’ve read) in some areas. In others, it’s completely alien.
Guns and gun control is one topic where there is just a huge difference in thought (in general) between the average Aussie and the average American.
It’s not better or worse (IMO) in an abstract sense, though the American approach appeals to some individuals more while the Australian approach appeals to other individuals more. It’s just different. Most Aussies view the whole topic differently than most Americans. Honestly, as odd as you probably think our attitudes are, Airman and others, and as much as we look crazy and defenceless and maybe even ‘oppressed’, we don’t feel that way at all. We feel freer, just like you do, but in a different way. And we view your approach in a pretty unflattering light, in general, which is probably as far from reality as us being defenceless and oppressed is. I admit that the way I view American pro-gun people is probably completely inaccurate, since I’m conditioned by my culture. I think we all need to see that there is a middle, and there is room for different approaches. There’s no absolute ‘right way’, though there most definitely probably is a way that feels right for you.
Me, I’m happy with gun control. I like it a lot. I know how to get a gun if I wanted one, but I’ve never even been slightly tempted. Zero desire. I like it that way. You like it your way. Isn’t it great we can have it whichever way we want, just by moving location ?
Apologies to all offended by my use of ‘we’. Obviously not all Aussies feel the same way, we’re all individuals, but the above holds true for basically everyone I’ve spoken to on the subject.
The Victorian murder rate is down by 20% on official figures released today. Rape and robbery are also down, and overall there is a 7% decrease in crime figures
I don’t make any claims that it is connected in any fashion with gun laws but I just present it as American right wing gunloons from time to time have used fabricated pictures of the Australian crime scene to justify themselves and indeed there was some discussion of Australian crime stats earlier in this thread.
