Australia's Gun Problem

[arthwollipot]

It's not really about Israel. It's simply the observation that laws are fiction. They exist only to the extent that we pretend they exist. When someone breaks into your home, or threatens you on the street, at that moment and place the law is whoever has the most force. Which is why it's so misguided to deny people the right to defend themselves.

Except that this is absolutely not true.

What you're describing is anarchy, which as a social structure both has never been tried formally, and cannot possibly result in good outcomes for anybody. If you really believed the above, then why would you not be constantly breaking the law in order to enrich yourself? There's nothing stopping you. Or is there?

Civilisation holds itself together because we have laws, and because people follow those laws even when they have the opportunity not to. That's why I say it's not a choice to follow laws. It's a social contract. An obligation. A duty.

 

[Trausti]

Except that this is absolutely not true.

It is true. If it were not true, then there would be no home invasions or murders. But there are.

What you're describing is anarchy, which as a social structure both has never been tried formally, and cannot possibly result in good outcomes for anybody. If you really believed the above, then why would you not be constantly breaking the law in order to enrich yourself? There's nothing stopping you. Or is there?

Civilisation holds itself together because we have laws, and because people follow those laws even when they have the opportunity not to. That's why I say it's not a choice to follow laws. It's a social contract. An obligation. A duty.

I'm not promoting anarchy. Where did you get that? You're aware that when someone breaks into a home they don't care what the laws are, right? Criminals by their nature don't give a crap about any social contract. They create anarchy. Yes, most people are not criminals and try to follow the law. Which is why the law should not deny them the means to protect themselves when a criminal creates the momentary anarchy where law does not exist.

 

[arthwollipot]

It is true. If it were not true, then there would be no home invasions or murders. But there are.


I'm not promoting anarchy. Where did you get that? You're aware that when someone breaks into a home they don't care what the laws are, right? Criminals by their nature don't give a crap about any social contract. They create anarchy. Yes, most people are not criminals and try to follow the law. Which is why the law should not deny them the means to protect themselves when a criminal creates the momentary anarchy where law does not exist.

So why then are you not a criminal creating anarchy? It's a very effective way of becoming very, very rich if you don't care about the law.

 

[Trausti]

So why then are you not a criminal creating anarchy? It's a very effective way of becoming very, very rich if you don't care about the law.

My dude, do you really think that criminals care what the law is? I mean, if someone were to break into your home and threaten you, you'd expect them to leave if you cited the local statute against home invasion?

 

[arthwollipot]

My dude, do you really think that criminals care what the law is? I mean, if someone were to break into your home and threaten you, you'd expect them to leave if you cited the local statute against home invasion?

Yeah, so answer the question. Why are you not a criminal? It's very profitable if you don't care what the law is.

I put it to you that you're not a criminal because you follow the social contract to keep and uphold the law, even when given the opportunity not to.

 

[Trausti]

I put it to you that you're not a criminal because you follow the social contract to keep and uphold the law, even when given the opportunity not to.

Yes. And most people do, for the most part (though we've all sped on the highway and jaywalked). But there are some people - a small minority to be sure - who don't. I'm reminded of the Richard Pryor standup when he asked the incarcerated murderer why he had to kill everyone in the house. "Because they were there."

 

[arthwollipot]

Yes. And most people do, for the most part (though we've all sped on the highway and jaywalked).

Not all of us.

But there are some people - a small minority to be sure - who don't. I'm reminded of the Richard Pryor standup when he asked the incarcerated murderer why he had to kill everyone in the house. "Because they were there."

So? You just finished saying that laws are a fiction, that we only pretend that they exist. Yet here you are saying that in fact you do follow the social contract. So which is it? Are you aligning your behaviour to a fiction? Or are laws perhaps not fictional at all?

 

[Trausti]

So? You just finished saying that laws are a fiction, that we only pretend that they exist. Yet here you are saying that in fact you do follow the social contract. So which is it? Are you aligning your behaviour to a fiction? Or are laws perhaps not fictional at all?

You're being too philosophical. I'm simply observing that when someone enters your home and threatens you, the law as written in your locality does not matter. It does not exist there. It cannot help you.

 

[arthwollipot]

You're being too philosophical. I'm simply observing that when someone enters your home and threatens you, the law as written in your locality does not matter. It does not exist there. It cannot help you.

How often has that happened to you? Off the top of my head I think it has happened to me somewhere in the vicinity of never.

 

[Trausti]

How often has that happened to you? Off the top of my head I think it has happened to me somewhere in the vicinity of never.

So? The odds of winning the lottery are slim. But people win every day. You never know what tomorrow has in store for you.

 

[Trausti]

You never know what tomorrow may bring.

 

[theprestige]

I've already made it. You do not choose to follow the law, because you are unwilling to accept the consequences of not doing so. Your choice, such as it is, is constrained by society and the structure around which civilisation has been built. You are not going to suddenly decide to rob a bank tomorrow. You are unable to make that choice. You cannot do it, and it is therefore not really a choice at all.

Thanks. I would never have guessed in a million years that this was the argument you were making.

That's the wrong statistic to be looking at. You're going to want to look at the one that shows that the majority of suicide attempts that are completed, are completed with the use of a gun. It's the most effective tool for taking one's own life.

That guns are effective at taking life is already known. I don't need to look up statistics for this. What the suicide rates of the two countries tells us is that easy access to guns doesn't have much of an effect on overall suicide rates.

The UK is a good example of the principle. You ban guns to try stop the violence, and end up issuing your cops stab vests, and you end up trying to regulate pointy kitchen knives, because the violence is still there. The suicide rate is still there.

 

[lionking]

The UK is a good example of the principle. You ban guns to try stop the violence, and end up issuing your cops stab vests, and you end up trying to regulate pointy kitchen knives, because the violence is still there. The suicide rate is still there.

Hate to break this to you, but in many Australian states certain knives and other bladed weapons are restricted, to the dismay of just about nobody. And guess what has happened in Victoria?

Stabbings: Victoria Police data indicates that overall stabbings fell by 13% (from 718 down to 619) over a recent comparable tracking period. [1]

 

[arthwollipot]

So? The odds of winning the lottery are slim. But people win every day. You never know what tomorrow has in store for you.

It kind of destroys your argument when you realise how rare such situations are. And lotteries are a tax on people who don't understand probability.

 

[theprestige]

Hate to break this to you, but in many Australian states certain knives and other bladed weapons are restricted, to the dismay of just about nobody. And guess what has happened in Victoria?

From your source:

Children are responsible for almost a third of stabbings in Victoria, with knife attacks involving offenders aged under 18 surging 30 per cent in just a year despite the State’s unprecedented ban on machetes.​

​

Exclusive Victoria Police figures obtained by The Nightly reveal children account for 31 per cent of stabbing attacks, with the number of child offenders jumping from 137 to 178 over the past year.​

​

The alarming rise comes almost a year after Victoria became the first State in Australia to outlaw machetes amid an escalating youth crime crisis.​

​

Victoria Police data shows overall stabbings fell 13 per cent over the same period – from 718 to 619 – while officers seized a record 17,438 knives and edged weapons in 2025 and almost 10,000 since the beginning of this year.​

​

But when asked whether the machete ban had reduced the possession or use of the weapons – and whether offenders were simply switching to other knives – Premier Ben Carroll’s Government did not answer.​

​

Looks like there's still more violence to be purged from Australian society, notwithstanding all the diligent knife-banning you've done so far.

 

[arthwollipot]

Looks like there's still more violence to be purged from Australian society, notwithstanding all the diligent knife-banning you've done so far.

How do the death rates from knife crime compare with the death rates from gun crime?

 

[lionking]

From your source:

Children are responsible for almost a third of stabbings in Victoria, with knife attacks involving offenders aged under 18 surging 30 per cent in just a year despite the State’s unprecedented ban on machetes.​

​

Exclusive Victoria Police figures obtained by The Nightly reveal children account for 31 per cent of stabbing attacks, with the number of child offenders jumping from 137 to 178 over the past year.​

​

The alarming rise comes almost a year after Victoria became the first State in Australia to outlaw machetes amid an escalating youth crime crisis.​

​

Victoria Police data shows overall stabbings fell 13 per cent over the same period – from 718 to 619 – while officers seized a record 17,438 knives and edged weapons in 2025 and almost 10,000 since the beginning of this year.​

​

But when asked whether the machete ban had reduced the possession or use of the weapons – and whether offenders were simply switching to other knives – Premier Ben Carroll’s Government did not answer.​

​

Looks like there's still more violence to be purged from Australian society, notwithstanding all the diligent knife-banning you've done so far.

Yes there are stabbing by children happening. I would never deny that. But stabbings down by 13% is a good thing, right?

 

[erwinl]

As it happens, the murder/manslaughter statistics from 2025 have just been reported in our country.
Apparently there had been 103 murder/manslaughter cases last year. With a population of some 18 million people, that would mean a rate of .57 per 100,000. Linky1
Our fire arms laws are more or less equivalent with those posted from Australia.

At the same time, the murder/manslaughter rate of the US in 2025 was 4.1 per 100,000. With a population of about 342 million, that would mean something like 14,000 cases of murder/manslaughter. linky2


So no.
I really don't see the need to follow the US in regards to having more guns available.

 

[Ranb]

Based in USAian stats in general, awful. IIRR a gun owner is 35 times as likely to kill themselves or a family member.

As far as I know, that 35 times figure is not USA stats in general; it is King County WA. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7154956/
For the USA as a whole, it is about 3 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder, as far as I know. Still too high.

 

[The Atheist]

Don't you love it when Conservatives with no real argument resort to posting nonsense in an attempt to obfuscate?