Self defence in Australia (LDP)
- Thread starter yennus
- Start date
Newtosilver said:
Not quite lions - but we should be able to own endangered animals.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-18/leyonhjelm-pushes-for-quolls-to-replace-cats-as-pets/6329674
Senator David Leyonhjelm urges Australians to adopt quolls as pets to preserve populations
In a speech to Parliament the Liberal Democratic Party senator has argued making it legal to domesticate native animals like the quoll and bilby will ensure their survival.
"Certain kinds of wallabies make great pets. The quoll may replace domestic cats," he told the Senate.
Jislizard said:
It's not (b).
Sultani is also charged with illegally possessing 30 different firearms and pistols, as well as more than 9,000 rounds of ammunition.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-30/nine-men-charged-after-police-raids-across-sydney/8077616
That's really surprising that a gangster had so many guns and rounds of ammunition - because it would have been illegal for him to have them. [sarcasm]
yennus said:
I don't have a problem with giving people a choice, however I think there is a need for people to be able to make an informed choice where deadly weapons are concerned and most people aren't able to make one and aren't willing to learn.
Being able to state what, exactly, you're expecting to have to defend yourself against and why you believe there is a credible threat to your safety and well-being is a good start.
Research from the U.S. indicates that you're 4.5 time more likely to be killed in a violent confrontation if you're carrying a gun. Bearing in mind that while this includes armed criminals confronting other armed criminals (who also, presumably, felt having a gun would make them safer than they would be otherwise) it also includes law abiding citizens who were perceived as threats by criminals and shot down as a result and law abiding citizens who believed - mistakenly - that their weapon would allow them to do things they wouldn't consider doing if they were unarmed.
If there's no particular threat against your safety and you're significantly more likely to be killed in a random act of violence if you're carrying a gun, why on earth would you want one? More specifically, once you're aware that you're actually in more danger if you have a gun and you still want one, isn't that reasonably good grounds to indicate that you're not able to assess threats well enough to have one?
In the military, you can be court marshaled for losing a weapon and go to prison or get kicked out of the service. As a responsible gun owner, exactly how responsible are you prepared to be? Are you prepared to take the equivalent military jail time if you own a firearm and lose it, or were you thinking you could just say "Oops", report it to the cops and go out and get another one? What if, at an absolute minimum, you could never own a firearm ever again and there was a possible jail sentence on top of that?
How much training are you prepared to undergo so that you're proficient enough to protect yourself without being a danger to others? There are people who do this stuff for a living and still manage to make mistakes, so are you prepared to take off several weeks every year to keep your skill up to scratch? Australian Army Reservists do 30-100 days service a year and give their weapons back when they're done. Even Swiss Army reserves aren't allowed to take ammo home with them, even though there's half a million people in that country with an army-issued assault rifle locked up safely somewhere in the house.
Sure, the world isn't always a nice place and there are threats out there but very, very few of them can be effectively reduced by you, me or anyone else having a firearm within easy reach.
That's not to say guns aren't really f**king cool either, because they are amazingly awesome pieces of machinery. It's just that they can be really dangerous and unless there's an actual need for them then simply having them around because it kinda feels good isn't really a great reason to make them legal to own outside of the very limited number of circumstances where people already can.
Big A.D. said:
Worked out well enough for this cashier.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NMfmPQdu0M[/youtube]
And this one too.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42wQh72DPG8[/youtube]
We don't know other peoples specific situations - hence we shouldn't be the ones to restrict their ability to defend themselves (be that with a bat, taser, pepper spray, gun, etc).
Maybe it is more dangerous owning a gun than being a victim of crime - even still, that choice should be left to the individual (just like many other risk taking activities, like drinking, smoking, voting, late night swimming, rock fishing, getting married, eating fresh oysters, etc).
Having the means to defend themselves probably saved this couples life:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EybxmPaSR6A[/youtube]
Nevertheless, the right to self defense is larger than just the gun control issue. E.g. Should a person be allowed to carry a pepper spray or taser?
Big A.D. said:
There is no correlation between the number of guns owned per capita and the likelihood of being involved in gun related violence. To argue that gun related violence is symptomatic of a gun culture is shallow or that the presence of greater firearms in a community places that community in greater danger is not backed by statistics and probably ignores more deeply rooted societal issues such as private property rights, disenfranchisement, psychological problems etc.
After much contemplation, I've decided I was wrong, weapons are dangerous, so to avoid accidently shooting/stabbing or clubbing meself in the foot
I have knocked a few large holes in the wall
And will shortly be introducing the big AD "open front door take what you want" policy
I will be pants down bent over in the corner with my eyes closed waiting
I have knocked a few large holes in the wall
And will shortly be introducing the big AD "open front door take what you want" policy
I will be pants down bent over in the corner with my eyes closed waiting
radiobirdman said:
Yup, it's like saying, because you might trap yourself in a fire, you should make door-locks and bars on windows illegal.
Or because "Most people are incapable of making the right food choices - we should regulate what they can and can't eat." (E.g. A Sugar Tax)
Adults should be capable of making decisions for themselves (for better or worse) - rather than having someone "smarter" making the decisions for them.
Newtosilver said:
Newtosilver said:
I read page one, a page full of irrelevant posts from you. I am glad that seeing this garbage on page umpteen that I didn't bother reading the other pages until now. As someone that has been handling firearms for the past 20 or more years (for the majority of that in my work), I can tell you that your obvious assumptions are incorrect. For a start, revolvers don't "jam" and semiautomatic weapons these days jam very very rarely and usually after several hundred rounds or more of firing without cleaning. If you are serious about defending yourself and ensuring your weapon works when it counts then buying a gas piston operated semi-automatic rifle or any of the modern pistols will hold you in very good stead.
In 2011 I tested this for myself. 5.56x45Nato Automatic rifle and 9mm Glock 19 pistol. 5 full days at the range with so many rounds down range by the end of day 5 that both of my thumbs were black with brushing from reloading ammunition into magazines. I didn't clean my weapon until the evening of the 5th day. In the 5 days the only time my weapon/s failed to fire was under 3 circumstances. 1. The magazine was empty, 2. an empty case was in the magazine (something we did to each others magazines so we wouldn't know when the stoppage was coming and 3. When I chose not to fire.
A knife is not more reliable than a firearm against a deadly threat. And lets be clear here, we are talking about deadly threats. I am sure by your ignorance you have already brought up red herrings like american's shooting trespassers etc if you were willing to go low enough to bring up incompetent firearm owners being shot by toddlers. Like somehow I am expected to just take the bullet from an intruder because some idiot allowed a toddler to get hold of a loaded gun. I have no sympathy for these people and we all shouldn't stop making ourselves safe because Darwin took it's course.
Newtosilver said:
My guns cost many thousands of dollars and it is money well spent. Money spent on camera's, doors and safe rooms is wasted money once the intruder is in and intent on doing you harm. Why should people make thier lives like prisons because you have a irrational fear of firearms? I'd personally rather live in a beautiful home with beautiful open style living with french doors and windows and have a couple of well secured but easily accessible firearms to shoot someone that is intent on doing me harm. And for the record, the law should state that anyone that breaks into your home after dark is assumed to have that intent.
Children should be protected by adults, what are you going to teach children knife fighting skills? Do you know how hard both physically and psychologically it is to seriously injure someone with a knife?Newtosilver said:
Newtosilver said:
While anyone wielding a firearm needs to be aware of their target/back stop and beyond. If a person that has a gun is intent on killing you, your first responsibility to yourself is to ensure that you top that threat. If by some minuscule chance a bullet flies through a person and hits someone else, that is something that can be sorted out later. As the saying goes, it is better to be judged by 12 of your peers than to be carried by 6.
Newtosilver said:
I am more than happy with tight firearms regulations. What I am not happy with is other people attempting to influence other peoples lives that have no real beef in the matter. People have a human right to protect themselves against violence under the UN charter of Human Rights. I would argue that ensuring through coercion that they don't have the means to enact that right (when there is no doubt about the threat) is a human rights abuse. It's the same as saying you have the right to life but then taking away all the oxygen.
Anyone commenting on this thread should do themselves a favour. Jump on amazon and order two books by Dave Grossman tittled "On Killing' and "On Combat". I believe him to be the worlds leading expert in what he terms "Inter-Personal Human Aggression" something that he terms the "Universal Human Phobia".
Big A.D. said:
People that want this right aren't intent on "effectively reducing more than a very few threats". They are hopefully never going to need to use them for such use and they are intent on only reducing that small number (if any) threats that come their way in their life times. But in saying that there is a very good saying that goes along the lines of: A gun is a wonderful thing to have and not need but a horrible thing to need and not have". Or words to that effect.
And on your last paragraph, the "having them around because it kinda feels good" shows your prejudice against people like me that feel comfortable having firearms around because inherently you think that I don't really need one so you are happy for the state to force me to not have the means to protect myself. Because it feels good to have one around certainly isn't a reason, because it feels good knowing that I (and my family) have a very high likelihood of surviving a lethal force encounter is a perfect reason to make them legal.
This might be timely at this stage.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OZIOE6aMBk[/youtube]
Note his comments about an intruder in his house.
The full routine if you're interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OZIOE6aMBk[/youtube]
Note his comments about an intruder in his house.
The full routine if you're interested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4
Lovey80 said:
All my comments ref knives being more dangerous and guns are sarcasm in response to raidiobirdman making silly statements, I was pulling the piss out of him. Thanks for agreeing with me on that point, radiobirdman take note of what lovely80 says. You are 100 perent correct in what you say about revolvers not having stoppages, same as a side by side shotgun for example. In 11 pages of posts why are you the only person to pick that up? That seems to suggest a complete lack of knowledge on behalf of EVERY other person posting pro gun posts and reinforces my point about the majority of people not having a competant level of skill/knowledge in relation to firearms.
Ref stoppages I have mainly used a browning hi-power 9mm, they are very prone to stoppages, also used a H&K, a lot nicer pistol and you do get less stoppages but they happen regularly. I had a browning semi-auto shotgun and stoppages were a regular occurance it. I have used M4's, SLRs, AR15s, steyers, AK47s etc and a lot of different belt fed maxhine guns, you get constant stoppages all day long and they are all kept immaculately clean.
Read the FIRST line of the FIRST article I found when you type in gun stoppages into your search engine.
"Pistol stoppages on the range are a common occurance"
www.officer.com/article/11443133/pistol/-stoppages-their-causes
The video Julie just posted is spot on the money, what he says is so funny is because it is true and it uses sarcasm to pull the piss out of the pro gun argument. Watch the link she provided to the whole clip
Why did I let myself get dragged back into this stupidity.......
Newtosilver said:
Because technical knowledge of the topic is not a pre-requisite for having a philosophical stance on the topic.
Some of you blokes flip flop more than a pair of thongs
Silver Pauper
Member
Big A.D. said:
Big A.D.,
Without a source for the research you used above to make your argument, the statistic is at a best irrelevant or at worst a figment of someone's imagination. Knowing you, I expected better of you.
Thanks,
