Only in America, "Safety FIRST"...

[legume]

People should be victims of violent crime, defenseless, instead?

Dann

Ive had a knife pulled on me more than once. I have never felt defenceless. You just need to be in control of the situation with a way out. And all of these people were attempting to make up for their lack of skill and balls.

Being on the offence is the worse defence. If you are in a position to use a weapon then you are either attacking first or have overcome the other and therefore its only spite.

If i have a knife, he wants a pistol. If I have a pistol, he wants an assault rifle. If I have an assualt rifle........

[NitroDann]

I think attacking during a moment of imminent danger after a legitimate threat is ok. I can defend that.




Paul: Your mum Betty is a lovely lady and is genuinely concerned with your behaviour.
You've got a nice girlfriend, you're doing well in school and everything in your life is paid for, she has no idea why you choose 'harassing strangers on the internet' as a pastime.

If you had given me her number when I asked for it the first time I could have got the message to you without driving 10 hours each way.

Just pull your head in and get a life.

Dann

[Apu]

Back to the “gun for personal protection” discussion...

Understand this:
- it’s one thing to learn how to shoot a gun (typically in a controlled environment with earplugs in).
- it’s another when the target is moving, and to be able to hit it.
- it’s another when the target is moving towards you, and shooting back.
- and then try and handle all this without hearing protection.

[Red_Bullet]

People who have enough, have a valued roll and are happy don't attack other people.

Sounds simple enough, but no, it's really complicated.

The lack of money and the lack of a valued roll make people envious and desperate, then anything is possible.

It's best to identify the route cause and deal with that than to have to be armed in public. A society that is just and fair has no need for weapons.

I sound like a hippy!

[slomo]

In the US, I would be more worried about being shot by a poorly train police officer who thinks everyone wants to shot him/her.
In Aust you are going to have a really bad day/decade legally if you use force to defend in excess.
Only if licenced to carry as part of ensuring a safe work place.....and even then onus of proof is on you.
However if you live by the line, rather judged by 12 than carried by 6, good luck.

Some don't know how lucky we are to have the gun laws and protections that are our norm.

I was in Montana a few years ago, and ventured into a sports store to by some shoes. Half the store was designated to firearms. I couldn't believe how plentiful and cheap the firearms were. When approached by staff I said I had never seen anything like this before. Your not from around here. Yes, they know all about Australia.

[ManiacLachy]

I can understand why someone in the US might want an easily accessible firearm in an MX-5 (Miata as were talking US). We're super exposed in our cars, especially driving top down. And the US has a far higher crime rate than we do.

I've felt exposed driving through Brisbane's Fortitude Valley early in the morning on the way to work, a guy asked for money ("gotta dolla?") because I was so open while stopped at a light. I was in no threat, we have such low crime it's unlikely I would be, but I was exposed. In many US cities, that's a car-jacking or mugging waiting to happen.

Guns are a major part of life in the US due to their history, and I understand why people want firearms for protection. I do think it's gone crazy though, they're too accessible, and available to people who simply shouldn't have them, and too many mass shootings are happening as a result.

As for the debate about whether they'd have such a crime problem if the guns weren't so available, well that's for another time. Like Red_Bullet was saying, contended people aren't as likely to commit crime and there are a lot of unhappy people in the US.

[Magpie]

Being an x member of the defence force guns have a single use, and it is not to defend. Saying that, they can also be seen as a deterrent however what will some people do when it actually come to using it in anger. I would argue that most people will hesitate and we all know the saying “he who hesitates is lost”.

People who use weapons for a living are trained to react and use them, we are not talking police or security here who use them as a last resort. Maybe some people should do some military (not make believe) training and get an appreciation for them. Hey I was trained in the use of C4 and other stuff, not a skill used outside the military, hence where my weapon use stopped.

[Apu]

Being an x member of the defence force guns have a single use, and it is not to defend. Saying that, they can also be seen as a deterrent however what will some people do when it actually come to using it in anger. I would argue that most people will hesitate and we all know the saying “he who hesitates is lost”.

People who use weapons for a living are trained to react and use them, we are not talking police or security here who use them as a last resort. Maybe some people should do some military (not make believe) training and get an appreciation for them. Hey I was trained in the use of C4 and other stuff, not a skill used outside the military, hence where my weapon use stopped.

Completely agree. You’ll know what I mean by my 3rd and 4th points then.

Even people who are “trained” can make some really poor judgement calls - case in point, the police officer in Hornsby who shot bystanders instead of the knife wielding offender...or even the Lindt Cafe incident.

[manga_blue]

I helped my son buy a 2nd hand Mustang in Florida a couple of years ago. We were searching through Craigslist ads in southern Alabama and the Florida Panhandle together for a few weeks. Some showed a pic of a gun holster mounted on the bottom of the steering column. It was a key selling point.

We basically decided that if there was a gun holster in the car or a confederate flag behind the car we wouldn't enquire. That eliminated more than half.

He reached the end of his patience with the South last year when a group of kids were playing in his street with a puppy and a neighbour came out with a Colt 45 and shot their puppy in front of them. I'm thankful that he has now moved somewhere vaguely sane.

[bonester]

I remember in Newcastle a couple of years ago that an intruder was found inside some dudes daughters bedroom. The house owner took him outside, roughed him up by hand and killed him. Didn't hear of the outcome if his murder charge. Surely he didn't get done?
(I was born in Newcastle by the way. Love the place. )

[greenMachine]

I remember in Newcastle a couple of years ago that an intruder was found inside some dudes daughters bedroom. The house owner took him outside, roughed him up by hand and killed him. Didn't hear of the outcome if his murder charge. Surely he didn't get done?
(I was born in Newcastle by the way. Love the place. )

I remember that case, but not the verdict. I would think that was an open-and-shut case of murder/manslaughter.

It is all about 'proportionate force'. Shooting/killing an intruder = murder. You need to be threatened with loss of life to take another's life. If the intruder is running away, you can't use more force than is necessary to restrain him until the law arrives. Lots of grey in there though.

I was on a jury once, pedo case. Victim's big brothers got to the offender first, and the police had to wait for a couple of days at the hospital until the accused was fit to be interviewed. Technically an assault, but I doubt they were charged - they certainly got a silent cheer from me.

[NitroDann]

You have no idea of the intent of someone who is in your family home at 1am with your partner and kids home.

Why would you give them the benefit of the doubt and choose to just lay down defenceless?

The newcastle case was odd because the guy died outside the home, but surely no one here is defending a predator invading a home?

Dann

[StanTheMan]

Saftey first. Guns for protection.

Is BS

ADMIT it you just like guns.

Nothing gives him the right to be in your home at 1am in the morning.
Nothing gives you the right to to take his life from him for being in your home.

you have aright to disable a person from doing something to you. Killing that person in a lot of cases is extreme and excessive.
you have to still prove that the force you used is/was not excessive


If you were to kill someone.....and can prove your life was in immediate danger you may not be criminally responsible for myrder, good chance you'll still be up for manslaughter.

Id say if you roughed him up oustside....and he passed as a result....The jury would still be on your side depending the arrogance of your attitude.
If you were to say I'd do it all over again....I'd say you'd see some jail time.

That doesn't mean I disagree with the attitude of....wtf is someone doing in my daughters room at 1 am in the morning?

[NitroDann]

I dont have any guns, nor does anyone in my family or any close friends.

It seems naive to me to assume that someone invading your home while you are in it has good intentions. At the point that a balaclava wearing bloke is in my house at 1am I can not possibly hold it against someone who swings a knife or fires a gun at the person.

What do you do? Just assume that the intruder isn't intending to hurt anyone? Assume that they came bare handed and are weaker than you?

Dann

[greenMachine]

Dann, words of one syllable. Intent is not the issue. It is what you believe, but mainly the reasons you believe that.

Shooting/knifing an unarmed intruder would justify (imho) a murder/manslaughter charge. If he was armed and you knew (or had good grounds to believe) he was armed and he was actively threatening you, very different.

This is established law. If you want to really know what you can (more or less legally) do in the case of an intruder, talk to your/a lawyer.

By all means play the keyboard warrior, and tell us what you would like to be able to do. Just don't confuse that with what the law permits.