Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well I never claimed you had full daylight invasions so its moot to me. I was more discussing invasions in general.

Even regular home invasions aren't a common worry. I'm living a half suburb away (sort of, it's really poorly defined down here, we have 3 suburbs on the one street for instance, 2 in the same building complex) from where there was some rioting a few months ago, it's generally considered a pretty dodgy suburb by brisbane's standards.

Yet there is no fear from anyone we know in the area of any kind of home invasions. Sure, your license plate can get stolen, or if you leave your bike unattended it can get nicked, but even in this bad area the likelihood of those more serious crimes isn't near high enough to be a worry, let alone a major worry.

Ok this resource is a bit old (late 90s), but it's the first one I could find, I think it's from South Australia.

http://www.ocsar.sa.gov.au/docs/information_bulletins/IB11.pdf

I wouldn't dispute you have a lower crime rate, but I'd say its because you have little organized crime to be worried about. You don't have the drug cartels thoroughly entrenched in your society, nor do you border a country that's basically a warzone for said cartels. Plus you don't have massive amounts of immigration.

Your lower crime rate isn't related to having less guns around.

Grey Templar wrote:I wouldn't dispute you have a lower crime rate, but I'd say its because you have little organized crime to be worried about. You don't have the drug cartels thoroughly entrenched in your society, nor do you border a country that's basically a warzone for said cartels. Plus you don't have massive amounts of immigration.

Your lower crime rate isn't related to having less guns around.

Are you seriously implying that immigrants are responsible for crime?

Not inherently, but some of them will be criminals. Criminals that wouldn't be here unless they immigrated here.

I wasn't saying that it was because of a lack of guns, I was just trying to make it clear about just how much of a worry, even in a bad area, we have about gun violence.

To be honest I'd kind of like to get myself a rifle, make better friends with some family friends who own property out west and help them deal with pest problems, I find that shooting is quite relaxing, but it's just a bit expensive for me at the moment. And I'll probably be moving house soonish (in a year or two) so I'll wait till I'm somewhere more permanent to get a safe et al. installed

Grey Templar wrote:So, what would you do if one of the Australian criminals who does own a gun comes calling?

What happens when your dogs get shot before they accomplish a thing and your hammer and pliers are useless?


From what I've heard the aussie police force isn't exactly fast responding even when compared to police responses in the US, and here it can still take a long time for police to respond.

Not saying its extremely likely but its something to consider. You'll be absolutely screwed if a gun toting criminal does show up.

I can't even respond to this properly because anything i say you'll just reply with "Guns guns guns guns guns" in an attempt to shut me down and then you'll assume you've won the argument because of it. So don't take my lack of reply as meaning your right. Because you're not.

azazel the cat wrote:Probably the same thing he'll do if a very large wave sweeps up a shark and washes it right through his window. Improvise, because planning for the one-in-a-million (likely longer odds, actually) is ridiculous.

That is, it's a highly unlikely concern because the criminals have an exceedingly difficult time obtaining firearms.

The only thing to do when a shark comes through your window is to put a lead on it and take it for a walk. They calm right down after a good walk.
I'm not sure whether cims have easy access to guns. They might, they might not. I really couldn't say to be truthful. I'm not loosing any sleep over it though.

Well, do you have a satisfactory answer?

So don't take my lack of reply as meaning your right. Because you're not.

Not giving an answer is conceding the argument. We were having a nice discussion. Please answer.

I'm not going to say guns are the answer just because I like guns. If you have a decent answer I'll leave it at that.

Grey Templar wrote:Not inherently, but some of them will be criminals. Criminals that wouldn't be here unless they immigrated here.

Then why did you specify "immigrants"? If only some of them will be criminals, then how are immigrants any dfferent from natural-born citizens, some of whom will also become criminals?

I think you singled out immigrants in order to imply that they are responsible for crime. That's really not cool.

Grey Templar wrote:Not giving an answer is conceding the argument. We were having a nice discussion. Please answer.

That's not actually how debate works. You are incorrectly assuming that you can just retort with something completely assinine and have it be considered a valid response.

I asked him a question, not an unreasonable one either, the least he could do is answer.

And I certainly didn't intend to imply that immigrants as a group are criminals. Just that they are a source of incoming criminals, a source that the US has more of than Australia. Sorry if I offended anyone.

At times I find these thread highly amusing. Its just the US grew up in a gun culture compar to those that haven't. The US grew up on muscle cars compare to other conutries that haven't. The US grew up on Playboy and Hustler while rest of the world that were able to get them were mostly 2-3 issues behind. US grew up on perservative in our food and Europe doesn't....our ketchup packets are free though instead of another 10 euro cents a pack....I grew up rebuilding whatever transmission hanging off a tree branch and not worry about EPA goons getting me....Germany EPA goons are....well...Gestapo scarey. I blame the world current teen issues on the US MTV...yep I went there...Our MTV....wanna be gangbangers....hip hopster...rappers...alternative music grps that seem ass backwards...like the one that say we stole gay rights?. Your culture...Our culture...this head banging ways of ours is not going to stop..Politics is the gorilla in the box. The gorilla only comes out when something huge needs to be done....ten yrs later the Gorilla peeks out the box ans goes back to sleep..the first Assualt Weapon Ban that happen and never continue

 azazel the cat wrote:

Lordhat wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:




2) When someone buys a gun, you run their name through the database. If there are no hits, they can buy their gun. No record is maintained of the background check or type of gun purchased to protect the citizens privacy.

I'd like to point out that this is exactly the system we have now for the purchase of firearms. The only thing missing from your proposal is the mental illness. There's a problem with adding mental illness to the database, in that what kinds/ severity of mental illness would prohibit a firearm purchase? Diagnosed/ confirmed by how many doctors? Is treatment enough to allow an exception? Is putting somebody on the "too wacko to own a gun" list a violation of privacy? The term 'illness' indicates a potential cure; how long does one stay on this list, or is it permanent?

Search YouTube for "gangstalking" and you'll very quickly understand the concern of not including mental illness on the list of reasons to exclude firearm ownership.

Oh, I completely agree that mental illness might be a valid reason to deny legal firearm ownership. I say might because unlike the other reasons ( felony, domestic violence conviction) it's not a binary qualifier; the methodology for denying a person(s) one of our fundamental rights should be as rigorous and foolproof as we can make it. IMHO we need scientists and psychologists to give us an impartial opinion on whether or not a national mental health database like the one needed is actually viable. It may be that mental illness cannot be quantified well enough to establish one.

I liken it to this: If one can lose one's right to bear arms for committing a felony, is it enough to preemptively remove that right from a person convicted of a misdemeanor, simply because that demographic is more likely to commit a felony? If not, can we justly do the same to those of poor mental health? Or is there a better method of predicting which mental disease sufferers are likely to commit atrocities, than there is to predict which misdemeanor criminals will become felons?

 Jihadin wrote:
At times I find these thread highly amusing. Its just the US grew up in a gun culture compar to those that haven't. The US grew up on muscle cars compare to other conutries that haven't. The US grew up on Playboy and Hustler while rest of the world that were able to get them were mostly 2-3 issues behind. US grew up on perservative in our food and Europe doesn't....our ketchup packets are free though instead of another 10 euro cents a pack....I grew up rebuilding whatever transmission hanging off a tree branch and not worry about EPA goons getting me....Germany EPA goons are....well...Gestapo scarey. I blame the world current teen issues on the US MTV...yep I went there...Our MTV....wanna be gangbangers....hip hopster...rappers...alternative music grps that seem ass backwards...like the one that say we stole gay rights?. Your culture...Our culture...this head banging ways of ours is not going to stop..Politics is the gorilla in the box. The gorilla only comes out when something huge needs to be done....ten yrs later the Gorilla peeks out the box ans goes back to sleep..the first Assualt Weapon Ban that happen and never continue

awesome dude! Exalted!

Is it just me or have Jihadin's posts been a little... odd lately?

I'm not sure what it is, but they're just weirdly written I guess.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Is it just me or have Jihadin's posts been a little... odd lately?

I'm not sure what it is, but they're just weirdly written I guess.

He's medicated dude...

Ok, that makes sense.

Ok well you discouted the dogs immediately that was your first mistake. The dogs have a home terf advantage. How many burgerlers/home invaders are gonna want to go up against a pissed of dog? Let alone 2 pissed of dogs? Do you even know whether there are dogs in that house?

As a burgerler lets assume you staked out the house before hand and you know for a fact there is at least 1 dog, quite probably 2. Well at least you know to expect them. So do you choose to pick the lock on the door or do you jimmy a window and get in that way? If you try to pick to lock on the door then you're gonna make some noise which will almost certainly alert the dogs to your presence and your location and they will be waiting for you. If you go in through the window you might get lucky and it might be a window that opens without much if any noise. But now you don't know where the dog/s are going to be. One might be snoozing under the very window you're attempting to get through. It might also blend in well with the couch or the carpet and you don't notice it until it's latched onto your leg. What then? Do you punch it in the face? No that might just piss it off even more. So instead you shoot it. Yes the dog is dead but now you have a nasty leg wound that needs medical attention and you can't readily carry any loot. But what about the possible second dog? Well while you've been dealing with his mate he's snuck up on and is now in the process of maiming you further. You could shoot him too no doubt. Then it's a simple matter of limping away and hoping no one heard gunshots or notices you limping with blood streaming down your leg. You'll be well gone by the time those owners get home and find their animals dead and possesions missing.

Or what about a home invasion. You kick in the door and start waving your gun around. You have "X" amount of people to deal with. Everyone of them a wild card. You're not gonna know what any of these people are gonna do at any given second. Then there's the family dog. Another even wilder card to deal with. You could point your gun at someone so they don't do anything stupid but this would leave you wide open for the dog. You could take a kid as a hostage to ensure no one makes a move on you. But again, the dog is the wild card and now you've layed a hand on one of his masters so as far the dogs concerned you're more then fair game. Maybe you notice the dog coming at you and you have time to turn and shoot it. Well now you've given someone the window they need to rush you and beat you to the ground. What now?


Now that we have the dogs out of the way lets deal with the inhabitents of the house. While you're shooting my dog/s you haven't realised that i'm home. So i grab the closest, heaviest thing to me and then go and smash your head in while you're reloading your gun. Because i highly doubt that you are calm enough and accurate enough to only fire a single shot to dispatch my pet/s. Better hope thats a semi-auto with a large you're using because I reckon that was 5 or 6 i heard and i'd hate to catch you in the middle of reloading your revolver. It's also highly probable that now you are slightly shaken from your dog ordeal. You ain't gonna notice me coming up behind you.

easysauce wrote:
all the aussies I know think they are worse off without the ability to defend themselves, broad daylight home invasions have become something to fear, since the crooks know no aussies can defend their home, and the crooks still ahve guns.

wat.

That is easily the most bizarre thing I've read all month. Broad daylight home invasions? Crooks running around with guns terrorising the defenseless populace?

It's like some alternate dimension dystopian Australia.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
wat.

That is easily the most bizarre thing I've read all month. Broad daylight home invasions? Crooks running around with guns terrorising the defenseless populace?

It's like some alternate dimension dystopian Australia.

You mean Mad Max isn't a realistic depiction of Australia?

 Snrub wrote:
Ok well you discouted the dogs immediately that was your first mistake. The dogs have a home terf advantage. How many burgerlers/home invaders are gonna want to go up against a pissed of dog? Let alone 2 pissed of dogs? Do you even know whether there are dogs in that house?

As a burgerler lets assume you staked out the house before hand and you know for a fact there is at least 1 dog, quite probably 2. Well at least you know to expect them. So do you choose to pick the lock on the door or do you jimmy a window and get in that way? If you try to pick to lock on the door then you're gonna make some noise which will almost certainly alert the dogs to your presence and your location and they will be waiting for you. If you go in through the window you might get lucky and it might be a window that opens without much if any noise. But now you don't know where the dog/s are going to be. One might be snoozing under the very window you're attempting to get through. It might also blend in well with the couch or the carpet and you don't notice it until it's latched onto your leg. What then? Do you punch it in the face? No that might just piss it off even more. So instead you shoot it. Yes the dog is dead but now you have a nasty leg wound that needs medical attention and you can't readily carry any loot. But what about the possible second dog? Well while you've been dealing with his mate he's snuck up on and is now in the process of maiming you further. You could shoot him too no doubt. Then it's a simple matter of limping away and hoping no one heard gunshots or notices you limping with blood streaming down your leg. You'll be well gone by the time those owners get home and find their animals dead and possesions missing.

Or what about a home invasion. You kick in the door and start waving your gun around. You have "X" amount of people to deal with. Everyone of them a wild card. You're not gonna know what any of these people are gonna do at any given second. Then there's the family dog. Another even wilder card to deal with. You could point your gun at someone so they don't do anything stupid but this would leave you wide open for the dog. You could take a kid as a hostage to ensure no one makes a move on you. But again, the dog is the wild card and now you've layed a hand on one of his masters so as far the dogs concerned you're more then fair game. Maybe you notice the dog coming at you and you have time to turn and shoot it. Well now you've given someone the window they need to rush you and beat you to the ground. What now?


Now that we have the dogs out of the way lets deal with the inhabitents of the house. While you're shooting my dog/s you haven't realised that i'm home. So i grab the closest, heaviest thing to me and then go and smash your head in while you're reloading your gun. Because i highly doubt that you are calm enough and accurate enough to only fire a single shot to dispatch my pet/s. Better hope thats a semi-auto with a large you're using because I reckon that was 5 or 6 i heard and i'd hate to catch you in the middle of reloading your revolver. It's also highly probable that now you are slightly shaken from your dog ordeal. You ain't gonna notice me coming up behind you.

Ok, I'm satisfied.

Although you are slightly underestimating the time it takes to turn and shoot something or even reload. It can be done way faster than someone can react to the opening. Even a revolver can be reloaded quickly.

I posted this before and I think it's time that it be posted again.

Hi to you two aussies, thanks for saying hi

to be fair, all the aussies I know were also right pissed off that the government made them give up their guns, IE their property, and the sports/protection it was used for.

the only two I knew I knew through shooting sports, so while you two may enjoy the situation, not all austrailians do.

OBS non owners still dont care about guns they never owned being taken. Really, they dont even know the real facts about guns, and have very little experience with them, beyond being scared when the talking heads on tv tell them how scary and evil guns and gun owners are.


if you dont feel you should at least have a plan B just in case some idiot drunk/druggie has a knife or a gun and targets you, then that is your choice, I have 0 problems with you making that choice for yourself, its big boy rules.

Its when you make that choice for OTHER people that its a problem, some people are old, and cannot swing a hammer and beat back multiple, let alone, a single attacker with ninja skills like you.

People not in tip top physical condition can defend themselves from a much stronger attacker, so that even an old lady is able to defend herself against a much physically stronger assailant.

you doom them to a hammer by forcing that choice on them, when thats not what they need.



and yes, home invasions did go up,

cited: home invasions went up 20% go to 1:39, other gun crime was up too

 Grey Templar wrote:
So, what would you do if one of the Australian criminals who does own a gun comes calling?

What happens when your dogs get shot before they accomplish a thing and your hammer and pliers are useless?


From what I've heard the aussie police force isn't exactly fast responding even when compared to police responses in the US, and here it can still take a long time for police to respond.

Not saying its extremely likely but its something to consider. You'll be absolutely screwed if a gun toting criminal does show up.

Most of the civilised world lives in the same state of helplessness and fear, yet somehow everyone carries on their lives without serious problems and gun related crime is very low.

We are democracies. If people wanted guns, we would vote for laws to make them more freely available.

We are left with these contradictions:

1. According to Americans, you can go around most of the USA without worrying about guns and crime, yet Americans are so worried about gun crime they need guns for defence.
2. Guns defend you against gun crime, yet gun crime is far higher in the USA than in Canada, the UK, Italy, Japan, etc where people don't have loads of guns.
3. It is in most countries easier than Americans think to get a legal gun, you just have to go through a licence process, but most people don't bother because they don't feel a need. The reason why Americans do feel a need is not because US citizens are inherently more violent.

IMO the reason why so many Americans are keen on guns is that it is part of the US cultural identity.

To be fair, it is absolutely reasonable and democratic to decide to keep guns for cultural reasons.

2 problems I have with that vid is England and whales maybe using definitions for violent crime that are different from the FBI's US stats and that crime has been going on a downward trend in pretty much all the developed nations (as far as I'm aware) not just the US. But the issue is that the

US has much higher gun violence than other countries not that it's crime is plummeting like the rest of the developed world, other than that the idea that the number of large metropolitan areas is effecting crime is interesting theory and might be viable. But then if you go compare countries

like Australia and Canada which have fewer large metropolitan areas than the UK but more lax gun laws, Australia and Canada do still have a bigger amount of gun violence so I don't know how far you can really take this metropolitan theory. And yes I understand his vid is about violent

crime in general and not just gun violence, but It's a lot harder to make a comparison of you go through all the types of violence especially if every country has different definitions for them and also gun violence tends to be the deadliest and have a higher kill-count than other types of violence.

easysauce wrote:if you dont feel you should at least have a plan B just in case some idiot drunk/druggie has a knife or a gun and targets you, then that is your choice, I have 0 problems with you making that choice for yourself, its big boy rules.

Its when you make that choice for OTHER people that its a problem

then do you also think that hand grenades and meth should be freely available? Or should we make that choice for OTHER people, too?

You see, like meth and hand grenades, the presence of firearms in a community affects the entire community. Therefor, it is perfectly reasonable to make decisions for everyone. That's what being part of a community is. You know, big boy rules. We built society on them.

easysauce wrote:


and yes, home invasions did go up,

cited: home invasions went up 20% go to 1:39, other gun crime was up too

No. Home invasions decreased.

here is a link to the statistics from 1993- 2005

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/victims/households.html

the video you posted was from around the time the government placed the ban on assault weapons in 1996

Australian women love American sailors.

Beyond that, I don't overly care much what they have to say on anything.

 Seaward wrote:
Australian women love American sailors.

Got a citation on that per chance?

Beyond that, I don't overly care much what they have to say on anything.

That's the spirit!

 Snrub wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Australian women love American sailors.

Got a citation on that per chance?

Nope. Anecdotal personal experience. The only kind of evidence that ever matters.

 Seaward wrote:
Australian women love American sailors.

Beyond that, I don't overly care much what they have to say on anything.

American Airmen as well. Not firsthand, but plenty of second hand on that.