HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Okay, so apparently this is the "Australia & Gun Control's Aftermath" thread. Reading the last page or so of posts I was starting to think I was somewhere else. This is probably an appropriate place to ask this question!

So, a lot of the time people in these threads seem to be talking about defending their homes from people coming into them. As an Australian, this doesn't make a lot of sense to me and I'm wondering if this is a culture clash. See, my understanding here is that if someone is breaking into my home, it's probably because they want to steal my stuff. As people generally don't like being caught or arrested, they tend to do this when they believe nobody is around (and part of protecting your home is avoiding the appearance of it being uninhabited).

So the only time I'm likely* to run into these people is when they break into my home believing that I'm not there and it turns out that I am. In those cases, the overwhelming majority of the time I'd expect them to instantly flee, because they don't want to get caught.

There are a couple of what seem like pertinent points here to me:

1. I don't have much of a reason to want a gun, because if I ever run into someone in my house they will probably run away.
2. the person unlawfully in my house has no reason to want a gun, because they don't expect anyone to be there and would run if there was someone there.
3. if I had a gun, it's possible that 2 would change, because they are less likely to be able to run away if confronted (though it's worth noting that, AFAIK, under Australian law if I am armed with a gun and the other party is not then it would be illegal for me to shoot them unless I had no other choice)

So I am sort of wondering about the cultural understanding of Americans vs mine, here. It seems like I'm better off not having a gun (or, rather, not being able to own one) in this case.

 Ahtman wrote:
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
To point number 3: Not everywhere (that I know of) in the US has on their books laws known as "Castle Laws" meaning that even if a d-bag is fleeing my home, so long as he/she is on the property they are fair game for being shot, provided they were not wanted (ie, violating Private Property signs, successfully or attempting to break in, etc.)

Self defence and the law

In Queensland, you have the right to physically defend yourself with reasonable force, provided the force is authorised, justified or excused by law.

The law does not allow you to carry anything that can be described as an offensive weapon. E.g. mace or spray dyes, or items that have been specially adapted, such as a sharpened comb, or knife carried for the purpose of self defence.

djones520 wrote:Your not allowed to carry knives in Australia?

Ensis Ferrae wrote:@Madcat, I completely understand that not everywhere has a form of "Castle Law"


At the same time, it seems rather odd that in Australia people aren't allowed to carry even mace or pepper spray!? I mean, how else are we supposed to flavor our food, or defend against pissed off wallabies (the animals, not necessarily the rugby players)?

 CptJake wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Now background checks at gunshows are fine and make sense. Make the venders follow the same rules as they would at their shop.

In fact, vendors (licensed dealers) at gun shows already must and do perform the exact same checks (and fill out the exact same paperwork) as they do in their shops.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Now background checks at gunshows are fine and make sense. Make the venders follow the same rules as they would at their shop.

In fact, vendors (licensed dealers) at gun shows already must and do perform the exact same checks (and fill out the exact same paperwork) as they do in their shops.

So whats all the fuss about from the people claiming there are gunshow loopholes?

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Okay, so apparently this is the "Australia & Gun Control's Aftermath" thread. Reading the last page or so of posts I was starting to think I was somewhere else. This is probably an appropriate place to ask this question!

So, a lot of the time people in these threads seem to be talking about defending their homes from people coming into them. As an Australian, this doesn't make a lot of sense to me and I'm wondering if this is a culture clash. See, my understanding here is that if someone is breaking into my home, it's probably because they want to steal my stuff. As people generally don't like being caught or arrested, they tend to do this when they believe nobody is around (and part of protecting your home is avoiding the appearance of it being uninhabited).

So the only time I'm likely* to run into these people is when they break into my home believing that I'm not there and it turns out that I am. In those cases, the overwhelming majority of the time I'd expect them to instantly flee, because they don't want to get caught.

There are a couple of what seem like pertinent points here to me:

1. I don't have much of a reason to want a gun, because if I ever run into someone in my house they will probably run away.
2. the person unlawfully in my house has no reason to want a gun, because they don't expect anyone to be there and would run if there was someone there.
3. if I had a gun, it's possible that 2 would change, because they are less likely to be able to run away if confronted (though it's worth noting that, AFAIK, under Australian law if I am armed with a gun and the other party is not then it would be illegal for me to shoot them unless I had no other choice)

So I am sort of wondering about the cultural understanding of Americans vs mine, here. It seems like I'm better off not having a gun (or, rather, not being able to own one) in this case.

 CptJake wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Now background checks at gunshows are fine and make sense. Make the venders follow the same rules as they would at their shop.

In fact, vendors (licensed dealers) at gun shows already must and do perform the exact same checks (and fill out the exact same paperwork) as they do in their shops.

So whats all the fuss about from the people claiming there are gunshow loopholes?

Most people ape the talking points but are ignorant. The fuss is that someone like myself (not a licensed dealer) can go to a gun show and sell a weapon I own to another citizen and not have to do a back ground check. Just as I can sell one now to a buddy outside of a gun show or give one to my son for Christmas without the need for a back ground check.


Most (but I am not going to come close to saying all because I just don't know) gun shows will not rent a vendor table to anyone selling firearms who is not a licensed dealer. They do so for liability reasons.

 Maddermax wrote:

So you have background checks on people buying guns, but those people can just turn around and sell them to anyone without any sort of check? Sounds pretty useless to me. If background checks are going to be of use, they'd have to be used on all gun transfers as well as new purchases. Just seems like you have very patchy laws, and a half baked law is often as bad as no law.

wiki def wrote:Straw purchases are most often associated with firearms, where a person used another person (their agent) to purchase a firearm for them, and then transfer that firearm to them. Straw purchases can be illegal in the United States when made at a federally licensed firearm dealership.(Sales made by a dealer at a gun show, or any location away from his licensed premises are covered by all Federal laws) If the straw purchaser of the firearm lies about the identity of the ultimate possessor of the gun, he can be charged with making false statements on a federal Firearms Transaction Record. If a firearm is purchased as a gift, the purchaser must indicate the intended recipient on the transaction record. Straw purchases of used guns are not illegal if the transaction takes place from one individual to another ( no dealer involved), unless the gun is used in a crime with the prior knowledge of the straw purchaser

 d-usa wrote:
So no new laws unless we can prove that guns sold to strawmen were used in crimes later on.

And how do you plan on anybody proving that?

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So no new laws unless we can prove that guns sold to strawmen were used in crimes later on.

And how do you plan on anybody proving that?

How about read what I actually wrote:

and show me a bunch of cases where guns legally purchased without a background check were then used by the legal owner to commit crimes you are not going to convince me we need new laws and bureaucracy which both increase the cost of gun ownership and infringe on freedoms.



bottom line is, what you call 'universal back ground checks' would only be universal for legal gun owners anyway, and the majority of gun sales already go through checks. Adding cost and bureaucracy without a real gain is silly. Enforcing current laws consistently would go much further than creating new ones. Seeing as how straw purchases are ALREADY ILLEGAL I am not sure how a new law changes that....

 ChocolateGork wrote:
I would like it if i could carry SOME kind of protection in Australia. We cant carry anything for the purpose of self defense.

Maybe one of the reasons we have a Rape rate that is almost 4x that of america (although there is a long list of possibly contributing factors)

 Maddermax wrote:

 ChocolateGork wrote:
I would like it if i could carry SOME kind of protection in Australia. We cant carry anything for the purpose of self defense.

Maybe one of the reasons we have a Rape rate that is almost 4x that of america (although there is a long list of possibly contributing factors)

Don't always believe comparitive data between countries, because it can be quite misleading. I know our Assault rate, often trotted out by the pro-gun people in the US, is always reported as far higher than that of the US, BUT when you actually look at why, you find out that it's because we have a much much broader definition of Assault that the US does (they only count assault causing bodily harm, we include assault that didn't cause bodily harm and threatened violence), and I'd very much assume the same is true of the 'rape' statistics. Solid data points, such as murder rates and car thefts show us generally doing as well or better than the US

The definition of rape under the Criminal Law Consolidation (Rape and Sexual Offences) Amendment Act 2008 is:

A person who has sexual intercourse with another person without consent of that other person:

a.Knowing that that other person does not consent to sexual intercourse with him/her
b.Being recklessly indifferent as to whether that other person consents to sexual intercourse with him/her
c.Continues with sexual intercourse when consent is withdrawn
Shall (whether or not physical resistance is offered by that other person) be guilty of rape

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:

 ChocolateGork wrote:
I would like it if i could carry SOME kind of protection in Australia. We cant carry anything for the purpose of self defense.

Maybe one of the reasons we have a Rape rate that is almost 4x that of america (although there is a long list of possibly contributing factors)

Don't always believe comparitive data between countries, because it can be quite misleading. I know our Assault rate, often trotted out by the pro-gun people in the US, is always reported as far higher than that of the US, BUT when you actually look at why, you find out that it's because we have a much much broader definition of Assault that the US does (they only count assault causing bodily harm, we include assault that didn't cause bodily harm and threatened violence), and I'd very much assume the same is true of the 'rape' statistics. Solid data points, such as murder rates and car thefts show us generally doing as well or better than the US

Understanding that your definition of assault is much more broad, surely 'rape' can only be defined in very limited terms? Certainly if you had said "sexual assault" instead of rape, then you could very well be correct, but I highly doubt that rape statistics can be defined very differently, regardless what country it is reporting from.

 djones520 wrote:

Australia's reported numbers, are 4 times that of the US's reported numbers.

 Grundz wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Australia's reported numbers, are 4 times that of the US's reported numbers.

Australia doesn't have a people of walmart either, correlation?

 djones520 wrote:
Rape statistics are very nebulous. The ones you listed are those that try to guess the total number, to include unreported rapes.

According to the UN who've compiled reported statistics, Australia has 79.5 reported per 100,000 citizens. The US had 27.3. Great Britain was 28.8 (England and Wales).

Gun Science
published May 2013

How data can help clarify the gun-control debate

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 31,672 people died by guns in 2010 (the most recent year for which U.S. figures are available), a staggering number that is orders of magnitude higher than that of comparable Western democracies. What can we do about it? National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre believes he knows: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” If La Pierre means professionally trained police and military who routinely practice shooting at ranges, this observation would at least be partially true. If he means armed private citizens with little to no training, he could not be more wrong.

Consider a 1998 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery that found that “every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.” Pistol owners’ fantasy of blowing away home-invading bad guys or street toughs holding up liquor stores is a myth debunked by the data showing that a gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault, an accidental death or injury, a suicide attempt or a homicide than it is for selfdefense. I harbored this belief for the 20 years I owned a Ruger .357 Magnum with hollow-point bullets designed to shred the body of anyone who dared to break into my home, but when I learned about these statistics, I got rid of the gun.

More insights can be found in a 2013 book from Johns Hopkins University Press entitled Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis, edited by Daniel W. Webster and Jon S. Vernick, both professors in health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. In addition to the 31,672 people killed by guns in 2010, another 73,505 were treated in hospital emergency rooms for nonfatal bullet wounds, and 337,960 nonfatal violent crimes were committed with guns. Of those 31,672 dead, 61 percent were suicides, and the vast majority of the rest were homicides by people who knew one another.

For example, of the 1,082 women and 267 men killed in 2010 by their intimate partners, 54 percent were by guns. Over the past quarter of a century, guns were involved in greater number of intimate partner homicides than all other causes combined. When a woman is murdered, it is most likely by her intimate partner with a gun. Regardless of what really caused Olympic track star Oscar Pistorius to shoot his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp (whether he mistook her for an intruder or he snapped in a lover’s quarrel), her death is only the latest such headline. Recall, too, the fate of Nancy Lanza, killed by her own gun in her own home in Connecticut by her son, Adam Lanza, before he went to Sandy Hook Elementary School to murder some two dozen children and adults. As an alternative to arming women against violent men, legislation can help: data show that in states that prohibit gun ownership by men who have received a domestic violence restraining order, gun-caused homicides of intimate female partners were reduced by 25 percent.

Another myth to fall to the facts is that gun-control laws disarm good people and leave the crooks with weapons. Not so, say the Johns Hopkins authors: “Strong regulation and oversight of licensed gun dealers—defined as having a state law that required state or local licensing of retail firearm sellers, mandatory record keeping by those sellers, law enforcement access to records for inspection, regular inspections of gun dealers, and mandated reporting of theft of loss of firearms—was associated with 64 percent less diversion of guns to criminals by in-state gun dealers.” Finally, before we concede civilization and arm everyone to the teeth pace the NRA, consider the primary cause of the centurieslong decline of violence as documented by Steven Pinker in his 2011 book The Better Angels of Our Nature: the rule of law by states that turned over settlement of disputes to judicial courts and curtailed private self-help justice through legitimate use of force by police and military trained in the proper use of weapons.

 Jihadin wrote:
AND in rolls PETA......Mongo was not armed with a firearm when knocking out the horse.