Australia's Gun Problem

[theprestige]

A guy I worked with when I was still at school didn't have his guns locked up correctly.

His 11 year old son and his mate decided to play with a .22 and his son ended up dead.

Our lawmakers figured (correctly) that a lot more harm will be done by unlocked guns than will be saved by easy access.

I'm completely happy with that rule.

I'm not saying it's a bad rule. Just that it's a bad argument against having a gun for self-defense. All your other arguments were based on the realities of what a gun can and can't do for you. Even if someone ignored the rules, they'd still be stuck with those realities.

 

[theprestige]

I had a locked steel gun safe with a locked, plastic covered steel cable through the trigger guards of the guns. Magazines were removed and locked in a separate drawer within the safe. Ammunition along with primers and powder for hand loading was locked in a separate, smaller gun safe.

And this means, what, exactly?

 

[Andy_Ross]

And this means, what, exactly?

They would have been useless against a surprise attack on my home.
I do have a cricket bat and a Gladius on the wall from my re-enactment days.

 

[lionking]

I have never owned a gun, but actually went trap shooting once, and hit almost every trap, to the astonishment of everyone else, including me. I have also accompanied friends on deer hunts (they are a big pest in our state). So I’m not opposed to firearms for legal purposes.

I even have one locked somewhere in our house. My daughter and son-in-law are living with us while looking for a new house. He is a shooter and has the gun locked away.

 

[theprestige]

They would have been useless against a surprise attack on my home.

You chose to store your guns in a responsibly useless configuration. What would you like us to do with this information?

I do have a cricket bat and a Gladius on the wall from my re-enactment days.

And what would you like us to do with this information?

 

[Andy_Ross]

You chose to store your guns in a responsibly useless configuration. What would you like us to do with this information?


And what would you like us to do with this information?

Do whatever you will with it, you usually do.

 

[theprestige]

I have never owned a gun, but actually went trap shooting once, and hit almost every trap, to the astonishment of everyone else, including me.

And me.

I have also accompanied friends on deer hunts (they are a big pest in our state). So I’m not opposed to firearms for legal purposes.

Well, some legal purposes in some jurisdictions.

Self defense is a perfectly legal purpose for a firearm, in some jurisdictions. But you're opposed to those. Same with personal satisfaction in carrying a firearm around. Perfectly legal purpose, in some jurisdictions.

I even have one locked somewhere in our house. My daughter and son-in-law are living with us while looking for a new house. He is a shooter and has the gun locked away.

It's perfectly okay to not like firearms at all, and even ban them from your home no matter how legally locked away. You don't need to reassure us of your pro-gun bona fides.

 

[theprestige]

Do whatever you will with it, you usually do.

This time I was trying to take your intentions into account.

 

[Andy_Ross]

You chose to store your guns in a responsibly useless configuration. What would you like us to do with this information?

I didn't choose to store them in that way, it was a requirement of ownership.
I would store them that way even if it wasn't.

 

[theprestige]

I didn't choose to store them in that way, it was a requirement of ownership.
I would store them that way even if it wasn't.

It's not your choice but it is your choice. Got it.

 

[Thermal]

There are a few parts to it.

Firstly, as I've posted previously, they're worthless against intruders. The gun and ammo must be stored in separate locked containers, so you'd be dead before you opened them both.

Okay, but that's not addressing the argument. That's saying NZ adds an extra layer of regulation to make the original argument impractical. Kind of like saying freedom of speech isn't valid because the law says you can't speak publicly?

The flip side of the coin is that home invasions are incredibly rare, so there's no need to have deadly force available.

Ok, "we trust our criminals to be nice" is a really strange justification.

NZ has a bit of an issue with beating, raping, and generally abusing it's women, yes? To an American ear, it would be a valid argument for a woman to say she wants to be, you know, not raped quite so often, and would like a last-ditch means to defend herself from a more powerful attacker when in her home.

Finally, the criminals are highly unlikely to be armed, so you'd end up facing manslaughter charges if you kill one.

Ok, and I think if you shoot someone, you should stand trial to assure it was justified, no matter what the laws are or how justified it would seem at first glance. Again, does a woman facing a much more powerful rapist have to box him first, Marquis of Queensbury rules?

I can see it's quite hard for Americans to parse all that, but long history has shown very few examples where a Glock in the bedside cabinet would have saved a life. I certainly can't think of a single instance where it would've been useful.

Have you spoken to any of your raped and beaten women about that?

And for clarity: I'm fully on board with tighter buying/owning regulations and basically no-carry in public. But in the privacy of your home, it seems to me that the most basic human right you can conceivably have is to... stay alive when minding your business on your property. So what I don't get is the State saying "nah, you don't have that right. You can chase a rapist around with maybe a frying pan, but otherwise just lay back and think of England". That's some cold-blooded ◊◊◊◊, man.

 

[Thermal]

The track record is very, very clear.

What was clarified? That some random guy thought it was surprising that US police kill more often? It is almost always when facing an armed attacker. Which is a perfectly valid argument against easy access and carry, but nothing whatsoever to do with self defense as a justification for owning an equalizer in the home.

 

[The Atheist]

NZ has a bit of an issue with beating, raping, and generally abusing it's women, yes? To an American ear, it would be a valid argument for a woman to say she wants to be, you know, not raped quite so often, and would like a last-ditch means to defend herself from a more powerful attacker when in her home.

The fact is that by an enormous margin, crines against women are committed by their intimate partner, so having a gun is likely to be counter-productive.

I'm not sure where you get the impression that women are randomly attacked on a regular basis, because that isn't the case.

Again, does a woman facing a much more powerful rapist have to box him first, Marquis of Queensbury rules?

Let's be real here for a second. You're being highly emotive without facts. I've now explained that Kiwi chicks don't have that kind of issue on the streets, and it's clear that USA has a higher violent crime rate than NZ.

Answer me this: How often do American women draw a gun and prevent an attack?

Then subtract the number who have their gun used against them and get back to me.

 

[Thermal]

The fact is that by an enormous margin, crines against women are committed by their intimate partner, so having a gun is likely to be counter-productive.

I'm not sure where you get the impression that women are randomly attacked on a regular basis, because that isn't the case.



Let's be real here for a second. You're being highly emotive without facts. I've now explained that Kiwi chicks don't have that kind of issue on the streets, and it's clear that USA has a higher violent crime rate than NZ.

Answer me this: How often do American women draw a gun and prevent an attack?

Then subtract the number who have their gun used against them and get back to me.

No idea where to find those kind of stats, nor do they have anything to do with my argument, which is that saying self defense... the most basic conceivable right... is not a good enough reason for owning a firearm, but shooting at paper targets is, does not make a lot of sense.

I mean, the logic of "if people have guns, they are likely to shoot each other, and we don't want that, so we are doing away with people's access to guns" is a sound argument, even though I wouldn't agree. Self defense being "not a good enough reason" is what strikes me as irrational. I can't think of a better reason.

 

[theprestige]

Finally, the criminals are highly unlikely to be armed, so you'd end up facing manslaughter charges if you kill one.

I almost forgot about this one. While reasonable people would prefer to have an overwhelming advantage when dealing with home invaders, Australia (ETA: And Kiwiland) of course wants to limit their options and put them at the mercy of anyone bigger and stronger. Because that's what home invaders are entitled to, as a human right: Victims that are not empowered to defend themselves effectively. This is what Antipodeans really believe.

 

[theprestige]

The fact is that by an enormous margin, crines against women are committed by their intimate partner, so having a gun is likely to be counter-productive.

Seems like women should be able and allowed to decide this for themselves.

 

[Andy_Ross]

How many home invasions are there in Australia or New Zealand?

I know they are none existent in the UK for people that aren't involved in criminal activities.

 

[lionking]

How many home invasions are there in Australia or New Zealand?

I know they are none existent in the UK for people that aren't involved in criminal activities.

It happens in Australia, but rarely. Of course news networks like News Ltd (Murdoch) love home invasions and unprovoked street violence (particularly when committed by ethnic groups) as it fits their commentary that the Labor governments, federal and state, have lost control of crime. My sense is that every single home invasion gets reported.

Of course the reality is that by international standards Australia is an incredibly safe place. We really don’t need guns to protect us from home invasion or street violence.

 

[arthwollipot]

It's not your choice but it is your choice. Got it.

Once can certainly choose to break the law and be a criminal, yes.

I mean, the logic of "if people have guns, they are likely to shoot each other, and we don't want that, so we are doing away with people's access to guns" is a sound argument, even though I wouldn't agree. Self defense being "not a good enough reason" is what strikes me as irrational. I can't think of a better reason.

Agreed, but you have to consider the risk vs benefit. The risk is that you are endangering yourself and others, and almost certainly taking and losing lives every time you use it. The benefit is that very rarely a crime of some kind might be prevented.

Which is worth the risk?

Of course the reality is that by international standards Australia is an incredibly safe place. We really don’t need guns to protect us from home invasion or street violence.

Exactly. America, comparatively, is an extremely unsafe place, mostly because the country is awash with deadly weapons.

 

[theprestige]

Once can certainly choose to break the law and be a criminal, yes.

Yes, and I think it's weird when someone says "I don't have a choice, the law made me do it", especially when they go on to say it would be their choice even if the law didn't make them do it.