JC102 wrote:Some people say it should be legal, while others say criminals will go around spraying people
chickapow wrote:It will be the same as guns. Us Law abiding citizens would do everything right, a small percent of crims will use to to rob places or whatever.
butiwanna wrote:It just sucks that that's the default position on everything here.
If someone can thing of one potential negative for something, that's seemingly the end of it and it's banned.
Warrigul wrote:Allow posession for everyone, make the use of it except in self defence illegal.
mahna wrote:I can't say I agree with concealed carry. I do believe if we just had a blank card law of everyone can carry whenever/wherever we'd end up like the states and all there shooting deaths.
chickapow wrote:JC102 wrote:Some people say it should be legal, while others say criminals will go around spraying people
Issues of self defence aside for a moment, of course criminals will spray people.
It will be the same as guns. Us Law abiding citizens would do everything right, a small percent of crims will use to to rob places or whatever.
Is one worth the other? Up to your personal opinion.
mahna wrote:Warrigul wrote:Allow posession for everyone, make the use of it except in self defence illegal.
Same for firearms self defence too IMO.
I can't say I agree with concealed carry. I do believe if we just had a blank card law of everyone can carry whenever/wherever we'd end up like the states and all there shooting deaths.
But having a firearm for home, and being able to use it for self defence in your own home, that should be Ok IMO.
If you take your home defence firearm out into the street and get caught then fair enough, you get charged for doing the wrong thing.
Defending yourself in your home though, no brainer.
JC102 wrote:Is self-defence with a firearm only legal in extreme circumstances? Was it ever? (I'm not a shooter, yet)
Warrigul wrote:If it is good enough to defend yourself in your own home then why is your life worth less when in public?
The issue has never been with those that abide by the law, I am a great believer that were I allowed to carry tomorrow then I would be no more likely to shoot someone but would be equipped in case it were neccesary.
Blackened wrote:I can't remember where I read these figures so don't take this as gospel... I read that for shooting deaths in the states the type of firearms used was something like 13,000 for handguns, and 30 for long arms for a period of time, it might have been a year?
Guliver wrote:That's a fairly irrelevant fact, handguns are over represented because they are plentiful and usually close at hand, if there were no handguns almost a 100% of deaths would be attributed what ever was available.
Guliver wrote:Some of the deaths may not happen if the shooting was committed in a moment of rage and not premeditated, having a handgun close at hand makes a shooting possible, having to go and get a rifle from were it's stored may give the person time to think about what there about to do.
Norton wrote:Strangely anti-gun for a shooting forum moderator, B?
Guliver wrote:What I was trying to convey was that crimes of passion may be less likely to happen if the perpetrator had a few seconds to reconsider their actions. In these sort of crimes only. Pistols being over represent because of the ease of access, pistols usually being kept close at hand in the house, bedside drawer, kitchen etc., rifles more likely to be in storage.
JC102 wrote:Any more opinions on this?
Blackened wrote:Guliver wrote:That's a fairly irrelevant fact, handguns are over represented because they are plentiful and usually close at hand, if there were no handguns almost a 100% of deaths would be attributed what ever was available.
That makes no sense at all.
If someone is shot with a hand gun, they are shot with a hand gun. Period, hard numbers, end of story.
Because the handgun was close/convenient doesn't change the fact they were shot. You can't say "this person was shot but doesn't count, it only happened because a hand gun was nearby".
That's like saying the drug addict only took the drugs because they were in his pocket. The wreckless driver only drove because the car was in his driveway.
People in the states aren't getting slapped to death with spatulas and having the police write it up as a shooting. The number of shooting deaths is what it is, regardless of the situation in which it occurred.
I'm not saying that a death may not still occur in a particular situation, but the numbers are what they are for the purposes of having an accurate conversation and make meaningful arguments they need to be acknowledged as they stand - not interpreted as the author sees fit in order to strengthen their position.
I mentioned I was going from memory and not to take the figures as gospel. If you've some some other numbers and their source, by all means let me know.Guliver wrote:Some of the deaths may not happen if the shooting was committed in a moment of rage and not premeditated, having a handgun close at hand makes a shooting possible, having to go and get a rifle from were it's stored may give the person time to think about what there about to do.
I think you're understating that a lot.
I have no doubt the vast majority of shooting deaths in the states are related to crime. Robberies gone wrong, gang fights, acts of rage like you touched on above. To say that just 'some' of these will not happen is an understatement IMO.
Anyone can fire a pistol, it takes the a fraction of second, no skill and no strength.
To kill someone with a manual tool (bat, rope, knife) would be an entirely different and more visceral act. A criminal may not have the strength, appropriate tool, time, opportunity or be emotionally detached enough to spend 2-3 minutes manually killing someone.
You're suggesting that if every handgun was removed from America, than nearly every murder would be replaced with a baseball bat or whatever. Personally I think that's nonsense. Of course some will still happen, but I think the number would be greatly reduced.
That's my opinion anyway. I'm happy to discuss alternatives as long as we're acknowledging facts and not twisting them to our own end.
I gave my view on what I thought a sensible first step for self defence was. If you've got an alternative I'm open to hearing it.
Elek wrote:There is a funny (maybe not the right word, but on with it anyway) story of how they trial tested mace with Police officers in QLD years ago.
I think I saw this on TV? I don't have an article or anything in front of me to quote numbers from so I'm making this up a little, but you'll get the idea. Anyway...
The year before they trialled mace there were something like 18 shootings by police against offenders per year.
Before mace a police officers options where to physically try and subdue someone if required putting themselves at risk, or shoot them, they didn't have an intermediate tool which was what mace was supposed to be.
The idea was in situations where it was dangerous for them to physically approach someone, mace gave them a middle ground option instead of forcing them to shoot someone.
They figured when they rolled this out that they might save 10 shootings a year to be replaced by macing an offender instead. Good in theory.
After the year of trialling the mace instead of about 10 used of it, there were something like 980 cases where they maced somebody
Bit trigger happy then?
Chronos wrote:
IMHO pepper spray is not an answer to domestic violence. If a woman need protecting she need to remove herself and her kids from the situation.
I would rather some lowlife run past and snatch my wifes or handbag and keep running than have her confront some looser with little to loose and willing to go to jail for $50 or $100.
Add to this the vase majority or rapes committed by current or ex partners or other acquaintances.
Aug 10, 2006 - Statistical information about sexual assault in Australia.
"Only 1% of the women surveyed identified having been raped by a stranger"
IMHO we need to educate women who may be at risk. Start by teaching them to to make an effective repeated strikes to the eyes, throat and/or groin. Then on how to report the incident
Chronos
on_one_wheel wrote:Yeah, make the pepper spray legal, but mae sure people who use it without good reson are charged with assault. There are a lot of defensless people out there who are easy targets for crims.
Warrigul wrote:Chronos wrote:
IMHO pepper spray is not an answer to domestic violence. If a woman need protecting she need to remove herself and her kids from the situation.
I would rather some lowlife run past and snatch my wifes or handbag and keep running than have her confront some looser with little to loose and willing to go to jail for $50 or $100.
Add to this the vase majority or rapes committed by current or ex partners or other acquaintances.
Aug 10, 2006 - Statistical information about sexual assault in Australia.
"Only 1% of the women surveyed identified having been raped by a stranger"
IMHO we need to educate women who may be at risk. Start by teaching them to to make an effective repeated strikes to the eyes, throat and/or groin. Then on how to report the incident
Chronos
You make it sound like 1% of women identifying as having being raped by a stranger as an acceptable statistic and not worthy of self defence.
Not my intension, I simply meant to stress that more needs to be done to help all women at risk if sexual assault and other violence and while a defensive weapon like pepper spray may help in a situation where she finds herself under attack (I stress may simply because the woman would need to be capable of using such a device effectively)
As far as a woman removing herself and her kids from a violent situation it sounds easier than it is in reality. You get a nutter and he doesn't give a ****** how far away she has moved and most doors knock down with a couple of kicks.
And how is her staying in an abusive relationship and arming her with pepper spray going to keep her and her kids safe? She needs support when she makes the decision to get out and the reporting is the start of that process
As far as the self defence and reporting statement goes you perhaps need to look at what you are saying or how you are saying it as you appear to be shifting the responsibility or blame to the victim.
Blame? No but responsibility yes. A woman is responsible for herself, and her kids. Surely you don't suggest she should rely on a man to protect her at all times, like occurs in some societies where a woman must be accompanied by a male family member when she goes out in public.
I'll be honest with you, a lot of competitive martial arts people and self defence class attendees have a very highly overated opinion of what they are capacle of and when confronted with someone who actually wants to do them harm they are in real strife. I have seen many come and go on door duties and most aren't much chop, nothing beats a competitive boxer or just a plain adrenaline psycho that wants to rip your head off for the fun of it. It is very hard to subdue a truly motivated person.