What do you folks over there in Australia think about this?

I’m glad you got my point.

 

What vigilante? I really hope you're not referring to the guy trying to protect his home as a 'vigilante'...

 

Weapons are a reason people get killed. They nearly as often are killed by hand. Rarely however is one with a weapon killed by one without.

But thats not really the point here. Whether weapons are available or not, it seems to be the use of any kind of force at all that you oppose.

Do you see a difference between a person using violence to defend themself and a person relying on the state to use violence to do it for them?

 

But cameras don't protect you, how much cctv footage do we have of people getting bashed... you're still in hospital going.... I sure showed them with those cameras. If you can prevent the bashing that would be better... no

 

And how do you propose stopping people from “getting bashed”? Are you going to have a cop on every street corner? Advocate for an American style gun law?

 

Don’t give me opninions give me science

 

If a crook knows the homeowner is armed, they don't enter. Your logic is faulty.

 

By defending one's self.

 

I want to see harsher sentences. Criminals are walking the streets again soon after they have been arrested. Especially for these unprovoked attacks

Criminals face softer prison sentences in Victoria
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/ne...a/news-story/560a948dccfd944611c09e7ff1d3f8f2

ps this is why this guy has to spend $1000 a day... because they're coming back for him

 

As to my assertion that "Weapons are a reason people get killed. They nearly as often are killed by hand." The global statistics on this are illusive and in part vague. However, According to http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/U-Reports/SAS-Report-GVD2017.pdf

"In 2016, firearms were used to kill about 210,000 people—38 per cent of all victims of lethal violence. About 15 per cent of these individuals died in direct conflict, while the majority fell victim to intentional homicide (81 per cent).

Latin America and the Caribbean recorded particularly high proportions of firearm deaths in 2016. Firearms were also used in at least half of all lethal violence incidents in several African countries—Benin, Cape Verde, Mauritania, Senegal, and Togo— as well as in Albania, Thailand, and the United States.

In countries characterized by the highest levels of lethal violence, 50 per cent of all killings were committed with a firearm, as opposed to about 12 per cent in countries with the lowest rates."

Additionally

"Direct conflict deaths accounted for 18 per cent of all violent deaths in 2016, a confirmation that a large majority of victims of lethal violence continue to lose their lives off the battlefield."

So, the majority (by a wide margin) of violent, intentional deaths occur without the use of firearms and away from the battlefield (which means most of them exclude bombs as well), meaning globally, the majority of intentional violent death (murder) is likely committed 'by hand' (hands/feet or simple common tools such as blades and blunt instruments). Would you agree to this logical deduction based on scientific data, or do you need to be convinced that there isn't some other sort of complex machinery or manufactured force being used to commit the majority of non-firearm-related murders?

As to my assertion that "Rarely however is one with a weapon killed by one without." I cannot find any dataset on this. Though it seems like a pretty straight forward and logical deduction, given the natural human tendency for self preservation and our preference for using tools to make ourselves more effective. What makes you doubt this is true?​

 

The state of Victoria has a lower murder rate than any US state. In fact, there are only a handful of US states whose murder rate is not between two and nine times that of Victoria. Just let that sink in for a moment. No one in America lives in a safer state than Victoria, and most live in states where your chance of getting killed is between double and nine times that of Victoria.

And all without us being armed to the teeth.

If anyone from a society that has successfully tackled crime has some useful advice for us then bring it on. Ideologues from nations that have spectacularly failed on this issue should be asking for advice, not offering critiques of successful nations.

 

For some reason not known to me you are trying to justify weapons in any society. Well, bunkers, it is not working.....
As bigfella was pointing out, too many people get killed in your country, not in ours.
See, there was a time, when the world looked at the US in awe, but that has long passed. For many people, also in the western world, the US is the one you have to be afraid off, so what has changed? Not only the Trump style self interest (disrespecting any treaty or contracts with others), but the strong belief that you guys are somehow better.
Not to mention the countless wars since WW2, which we were also involved in due to some of our own coward PMs.
I think you don't have the high grounds anymore, not morally, not by any values. These days are long over.
It would be lovely if the US would contribute more to a peaceful world, and not only acting in self interest, but that would be like asking Mickey Mouse to step dance for Xi Ping or Putin.....
Guns are designed to kill, at whatever end you might be.
Reg.

 

So you're not going to answer my question...?

 

mp,
whichever answer you received, not only from me, shows you are a die hard weapon pro.
And sadly your avatar speaks for itself and further points this out.
As I said, why you defend weapons in a civil society is beyond me.
I think we have to leave it there.....
Reg.

 

I own a firearm and if my house is broken into the first thing im doing is running to my safe.

 

I liked this novelist's way of thinking.

 

As to the gun manufacturers wanting to make money: of course. However sometimes they think they can do this by supporting gun control.
Prime example: Ruger supported the (failed) 2012 assault weapons ban, which would have banned all AR and AK rifles, among others. What it didn't ban was the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle. The Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle fires the same cartridge as the AR, is semi-automatic and accepts high capacity detatchable magazines. While urgonomically, mechanically and visibly different from the civilian AR, it is effectively identical and is no more or less an 'assault rifle' than the AR. Ruger was hoping to use the legislation to corner the market by restricting the competition, and the US 'gun control' political leadership was happy to let them do it if it meant they could get a major manufacturer to support and lobby their bill. I hope I dont need to point out that the entire purpose of the bill was undermined by this alliance, as everyone who wouldve wanted to buy an AR wouldve only been limited to buying Rugers Mini-14 instead.

 

Fiendishly clever, these gun manufacturers!

 

It also says a lot about those pushing the bill: namely, that they're not concerned with the effectiveness of their legislation, but rather just getting anything rammed through that they can.

 

Who were the gun control people who were colluding with Ruger?
That sounds a bit odd.

 

Feinstein

 

Perhaps she was swimming out of her depth?

 

I got a bridge for sale. Interested?

The Mini-14 is the second or third most popular style of semi-automatic rifle in the US. If leaving it out of a ban that was months in the making and made it all the way to the Senate floor was a 'mistake', then we have a whole new question to ponder- what business do folks who would make such a mistake have in creating any sort of legislation at all?

It wasn't a mistake though. There were hundreds of rifles and pistols on the list of banned weapons in that bill, and they specifically listed all the different makes and models of each type of firearm. ALL models of the Mini-14 were left out. It was deliberate cronyism.

 

That must have been the thin end of the wedge they were talking about was it?

 

Im not familiar with that metaphor being used in this context. How do you see 'the thin edge of the wedge' applicable here?