What good is it having a hand gun at the ready to protect yourself and your family, Fla. mother shot

Come on Susie. You've been in Australia long enough to recognise irony.

I mean the streets in my own neighbourhood, which has its share of criminals.
Even so, I've never needed a gun or an armed escort for my safety.

By the way, I've given up expecting gun laws in America to change any time soon.
What is needed is a change in thinking, in the perception that every home is under threat from homicidal maniacs.
Also a realisation that for every person saved by being armed, there are many more harmed by guns kept in the home and car.
Yes, irony?
Australia is considered one of the safest countries in the world.
Take my neighborhood: All doors and windows are tightly locked; shutters are down sometimes day and night; electronic protection everywhere!
By contrast in '72 doors could be left open, walking in the evening was possible.
The news media is reporting increased aggravated burglary.
Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Australia.
The irony-if there is so much crime, why is it considered safe to live here?
 

Our doors are still left open, but usually due to forgetfulness in the case of the front door.
I came home this week to find the front door wide open behind the unlocked wire screen door.
It is usually in that state when we are at home but we mostly shut it when we go out.

The irony-if there is so much crime, why is it considered safe to live here?

My answer is that crime does not always mean danger to the person.
Burglary and car theft do not usually result in injury to the victim, much less their death.

From your link

Crime in Australia is combated by the Australian police and other agencies.
The number of offenders proceeded against by police during 2013-2014 increased by 4%.[SUP][1][/SUP]
In 2013-2014 the offender rate, which is the number of offenders in the population of Australia, increased by 2%. The number of Youth offenders fell by 4%.[SUP][1][/SUP]

Type of Offences

The most prevalent offences are Public Disorder offences, followed by illicit drug offences. The largest percentage increase are sexual assault and related offences which increased by 19%.[SUP][1][/SUP]

From the National Australian Homicide Monitoring program report 2012: "The homicide rate has continued to decline each year, since 1989-90. The periods 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 are the lowest homicide rate since data collection began in 1989"[SUP][2][/SUP]

Murder rate by population

In fact, the Australian murder rate has fallen to close to one per 100,000 while the US rate, thankfully lower than in the early 1990s, is still roughly at 4.5 per 100,000
 
Scary as heck, but a well trained pup against intruders...best security system you need. They are mellow with family and sound a very convincing alarm with strangers...
 

Pro-gun Florida mom accidentally shot by 4-year-old son after leaving loaded weapon in car, bragging about how tot gets 'gets jacked up' for target practice

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pro-gun-florida-mom-shot-4-year-old-son-article-1.2558180

She had a facebook page with gun 'sense' in the title. I don't think that was too darn sensible on her part.

It's incredibly stupid. I was taught to use and respect guns at a young age -- but 4 years old is WAY too young in my opinion. The only thing a 4 year old should be taught about guns is that guns are NOT toys and never to touch them. And anyone with any common sense at all would NEVER leave a loaded weapon where a 4 year old could get to it. Period.
 
Come on Susie. You've been in Australia long enough to recognise irony.

I mean the streets in my own neighbourhood, which has its share of criminals.
Even so, I've never needed a gun or an armed escort for my safety.

By the way, I've given up expecting gun laws in America to change any time soon.

What is needed is a change in thinking, in the perception that every home is under threat from homicidal maniacs.

Also a realisation that for every person saved by being armed, there are many more harmed by guns kept in the home and car.

I've never "needed" a gun or an armed escort for my safety either Warrigal, and I've lived in a couple of different states in America, including the very largely populated city of NY. I don't know if there's a city in Australia that could compare.

I don't know why you care so much about expecting change in American gun laws. I am an American, born and raised, and I hope the gun laws don't change, they're already more restrictive than need be for the average law-abiding responsible American citizen who are the only ones affected by these gun control laws. The criminals do not abide by the laws, don't know how many times that can be said and ignored by those with an anti-gun agenda.

That perception is your own biased anti-gun opinion, many people in the US choose to have a gun in their homes for various reasons, they're collectors, hunters, or just want to own one for protection of themselves and family (if ever needed), or just for fun target practice, etc.

We in no way are under the perception that our home is under threat of homicidal maniacs, that's ridiculous and typical of those who are mesmerized by the dramatic exaggerated headlines of the news sources they favor, the anti-gun news sources of choice.

However, I've had a gun in my home ready if needed, and in my 40+ years of owning it and living in this great country of ours, I have never had the need to use it for self-defense, and I expect to go to my grave with never having to use any of our guns for that purpose. But...it's better to have one and not need it, than to need one and not have it.

I have a very hard time believing your allegation that for every person saved by being armed, there are more harmed by guns. Please provide some realistic statistics to prove that one.







Also, how can street crime in Australia even be compared with that of the US, considering the differences in population.

Australia, people per sq. km in the years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

...compared to USA for those same years.

Australia3333

United States34343535

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST




Yes, irony?
Australia is considered one of the safest countries in the world.
Take my neighborhood: All doors and windows are tightly locked; shutters are down sometimes day and night; electronic protection everywhere!
By contrast in '72 doors could be left open, walking in the evening was possible.
The news media is reporting increased aggravated burglary.
Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Australia.
The irony-if there is so much crime, why is it considered safe to live here?

Thank you Susie for your honest input here, much appreciated.
 
It's incredibly stupid. I was taught to use and respect guns at a young age -- but 4 years old is WAY too young in my opinion. The only thing a 4 year old should be taught about guns is that guns are NOT toys and never to touch them. And anyone with any common sense at all would NEVER leave a loaded weapon where a 4 year old could get to it. Period.

Completely agree, I'm happy that she was the only victim in that situation, serves her right IMO.
 
SeaBreeze, the video clip contains these claims

Gun ban stats.JPG

Here is the response to these statements published on January 21, 2013

In the wake of the Port Arthur massacre and Monash University shootings, the conservative government of John Howard introduced a series of gun laws. These restricted who could own guns and the type of guns they could own.

While the impact of the Australian gun laws is still debated, there have been large decreases in the number of firearm suicides and the number of firearm homicides in Australia. Homicide rates in Australia are only 1.2 per 100,000 people, with less than 15% of these resulting from firearms.

Prior to the implementation of the gun laws, 112 people were killed in 11 mass shootings. Since the implementation of the gun laws, no comparable gun massacres have occurred in Australia.

Remarkably, American pro-gun advocates try to use the impact of the Australian gun law reform to make a case that reform “doesn’t work”. This seems amazing given the homicide rate in the United States is five per 100,000 people, with most homicides involving firearms.

When gun advocates use Australian crime stats, they sometimes employ a number of misleading tricks and sleights of hand. These tricks are common to several politically charged debates, and are a form of pseudo-science. Let’s look at these tricks in action.
[h=2]Cherry picking[/h]The selective use of data, or cherry picking, is a commonly used method of extracting the “right” answer. This is true even when all the data tells a completely different story. Cherry picking often exploits random fluctuations in data. Firearm deaths in Australia have declined over the past two decades, but from year-to-year one can see variations up and down. Bigger fractional fluctuations are likely if you shrink your sample size.

Leading US pro-gun lobby group the National Rifle Association (NRA) was cherry picking when its publication, NRA News, reported this statistic from New South Wales:
In the inner west, robberies committed with firearms skyrocketed more than 70% over the previous year, figures show.
Rather than giving the national trend over many years, the NRA chose one part, of one city, in one state and just two years of data. The NRA’s use of stats is misleading. Around Australia, robberies using firearms have declined from over 1500 per year in the 1990s to 1100 per year.


[h=2]Look over there![/h]When the most relevant statistics give the “wrong” answer, advocates often switch to less relevant statistics that give the “right” answer.
In the Wall Street Journal, Joyce Lee Malcolm stated
In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.
The implication is gun control has increased assaults and sexual assaults. This is completely misleading.

Weapons (including knives) are only used in 13% of assaults and 2% of sexual assaults in Australia. Firearms are rarely the weapon used, and only 0.3% of assaults in New South Wales used firearms.

Firearm use is almost completely irrelevant to assault and sexual assault in Australia, and cannot be driving changes in these crimes. Suggesting otherwise is deceptive.


[h=2]Making it up[/h]If all else fails, there is a remarkably simple solution. Just make up some numbers. Over 300,000 people have recently viewed copies of an NRA tabloid infomercial which claims
[Australian] gun murders increased 19%.
This is just plain wrong.
However, inventing numbers is a remarkably effective approach, and isn’t limited to the internet. If you lie, how many people will check your numbers? If the lie is caught, how will that be communicated to your audience?
For the record, in Australia firearms are now used less in robberies, homicides and kidnappings than they were in the 1990s.
[h=2]Back to reality[/h]So what is the reality? Homicide and suicide rates have declined in Australia since the 1990s. Deaths results from firearms have plunged even more dramatically. In Australia, mass shootings similar to Port Arthur, Hoddle Street and Strathfield have not occurred for over a decade.

Is this the result of the gun laws introduced by the Howard government? While some (particularly gun advocates) dispute their impact, several studies conclude the laws have made a difference.

Claims that Australian gun laws have increased crime are pure spin and deception. They say more about American partisan politics than about the reality in Australia.

http://theconversation.com/faking-w...-americans-abuse-australian-crime-stats-11678

More recently, former PM John Howard has challenged the idea that Australian gun laws are either ineffective or counterproductive

Los Angeles: Former Australian prime minister John Howard has re-entered the US gun debate, declaring it is "incontestable" gun-related homicides fell significantly after he introduced strict laws following the Port Arthur massacre. Speaking on CBS' Sunday Morning TV news program, Mr Howard said he was compelled to act after 35 people were gunned down at the Tasmanian historical site in 1996.

"It is incontestable that gun-related homicides have fallen quite significantly in Australia, incontestable," Mr Howard said. "I mean, if you had 13 mass shootings before Port Arthur and you had none since, isn't that evidence?

"And you had a 74 per cent fall in the gun-related suicide rates, isn't that evidence?
"Or are we expected to believe that that was all magically going to happen? Come on."

The gun debate has become one of the hottest topics in the US presidential campaign, with Republican frontrunners Donald Trump and Ted Cruz staunchly defending Americans' constitutional right to own firearms.


Senator Cruz falsely claimed in one US radio interview sexual assaults on women in Australia went up significantly after the strict gun laws were introduced.

"People used to say to me, 'You violated my human rights by taking away my gun,' " Mr Howard, who is regularly called upon by the US media to explain Australia's gun laws, said. "And I'd [say], 'I understand that. Will you please understand the argument, the greatest human right of all is to live a safe life without fear of random murder.' "

CBS also interviewed pro-gun Australian Senator David Leyonhjelm, Australian lawyer and wine-maker Greg Melick and Port Arthur survivor Carolyn
Loughton, who lost her 15-year-old daughter Sarah in the massacre.

"I don't think there's any relationship between the availability of guns and the level of violence," Senator Leyonhjelm said.
Asked if Australia could provide a lesson to the US, Ms Loughton replied: "I am loath to comment, but my question is, 'How is it going for you over there?' "

The most startling interview for Americans was probably that with Mr Melick who is pro-gun, but agreed with the strict laws that took some of his high-powered guns away and forced him to lock up his weapons in different safes on his rural Australian property.

Mr Melick said he viewed gun ownership as a privilege, not a right.

"It's just bizarre the number of people getting killed in the United States and you have these ridiculous arguments: 'Well, people carry guns so they can defend themselves,' " Mr Melick told CBS journalist Seth Doane.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/john-howard-defends-australias-gun-record-on-us-tv-20160313-gni0j5.html
 
SeaBreeze said:
I have a very hard time believing your allegation that for every person saved by being armed, there are more harmed by guns. Please provide some realistic statistics to prove that one.

Attempting to respond to your challenge I have found this information

The rhetoric that credits guns with reducing violence draws largely on a 1995 analysis titled ‘Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun’ by Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University. Kleck estimated at 2.2 to 2.5 million the occasions when a gun might have been used in self-defence. That 2.5 million is the figure most often quoted by the National Rifle Association. It’s the data that forms the scientific bedrock for VCDL, and organisations like it, to claim that guns save lives.

But are its data and conclusions reliable?

Kleck based his estimate on a telephone survey of 4,977 people. Of those, 213 claimed to have used a gun in self-defence during the previous five years, and followed it up with other details including whether they ‘had saved a life by using the gun’. These 213 were used to assess ‘prevalence’. Scaling over the country’s population, the number of available firearms, and with other control factors, Kleck estimated 2.2 to 2.5 million self-defence cases a year.

There is no doubt that some Americans do defend themselves with guns, but using a small survey to estimate the nationwide prevalence of a rare occurrence is problematic.

‘A
ll attempts at external validation of the 2.5 million figure show that it is an enormous overestimate,’ wrote David Hemenway, a professor of health policy at Harvard University, in a 1997 critique titled, ‘The Myth of Millions of Annual Self-Defense Gun Uses’. Surveys of such rare events suffer from two issues.

First, people’s memories about when these incidents occurred are often hazy, and second, people tend to overstate things when they believe they acted heroically.

‘Such incidents are regularly reported in American Rifleman, a monthly magazine distributed to all members of the National Rifle Association, in a manner that unequivocally portrays the incidents as heroic acts,’ wrote Daniel Webster and Jens Ludwig in a 1999 Berkeley Media Studies Group analysis debunking the myth of widespread defensive gun use. The best science indicates, they wrote, that more guns lead to more deaths.

Indeed, there is much evidence to support the notion that guns increase – rather than reduce – homicides. Take the Violence Policy Center study that showed that in 2010, for every defensive use of a gun to kill an attacker, there were 36 other criminal homicides. Or another long-range study, released last year, where researchers at the Boston University School of Public Health compared gun ownership and firearm homicide data between 1981 and 2010. According to the study, states with higher levels of gun ownership had ‘disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides’.

https://aeon.co/essays/the-us-gun-lobby-says-that-guns-save-lives-do-they

The 2.2 - 2.5 million lives saved is used to produce this argument but can the number be supported by other studies?

Compared to about 35,000 gun deaths every year, 2.5 million good Americans use guns to protect themselves, their families, and their livelihoods - there are 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun - five lives are protected per minute - and, of those 2.5 million protective uses of guns, about 1/2 million are believed to have saved lives. [2]

I have seen a claim that for every life saved, 13 are lost, but I doubt that this figure can be verified either.
 
I'll pay this one. One or more lives were saved on this occasion.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/03/1...shoots-axe-wielding-attacker-at-7-eleven.html

A customer at a 7-Eleven store outside Seattle shot and killed a masked man who attacked a clerk with an ax early Sunday.

Investigators said the shooting happened at the store in White Center at approximately 5:45 a.m. local time. Witnesses said the man entered the store and swung a hatchet toward the customer before turning his attention to the clerk.

As the assailant attacked, the customer pulled out a pistol and fired, hitting the suspect. The clerk suffered minor injuries to his stomach and the suspect was pronounced dead at the scene.

The customer who shot the suspect is described as a 60-year-old Seattle man who visits the store every morning to get coffee. His name was not immediately released.
Authorities said the man who shot the attacker had a concealed carry permit and likely would not face charges as a result of his action.

"This could have been a lot worse,” King County Sheriff’s Sergeant Cindi West told KCPQ. “The clerk could be the one laying there dead on the floor right now.”

The motive for the assault was not clear. Investigators said the ax-wielding man remained silent throughout the assault. The assailant's identity was not immediately revealed, and authorities described him only as a man in his 40s.
 
I've never "needed" a gun or an armed escort for my safety either Warrigal, and I've lived in a couple of different states in America, including the very largely populated city of NY. I don't know if there's a city in Australia that could compare.

I don't know why you care so much about expecting change in American gun laws. I am an American, born and raised, and I hope the gun laws don't change, they're already more restrictive than need be for the average law-abiding responsible American citizen who are the only ones affected by these gun control laws. The criminals do not abide by the laws, don't know how many times that can be said and ignored by those with an anti-gun agenda.

That perception is your own biased anti-gun opinion, many people in the US choose to have a gun in their homes for various reasons, they're collectors, hunters, or just want to own one for protection of themselves and family (if ever needed), or just for fun target practice, etc.

We in no way are under the perception that our home is under threat of homicidal maniacs, that's ridiculous and typical of those who are mesmerized by the dramatic exaggerated headlines of the news sources they favor, the anti-gun news sources of choice.

However, I've had a gun in my home ready if needed, and in my 40+ years of owning it and living in this great country of ours, I have never had the need to use it for self-defense, and I expect to go to my grave with never having to use any of our guns for that purpose. But...it's better to have one and not need it, than to need one and not have it.

I have a very hard time believing your allegation that for every person saved by being armed, there are more harmed by guns. Please provide some realistic statistics to prove that one.





Also, how can street crime in Australia even be compared with that of the US, considering the differences in population.

Australia, people per sq. km in the years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

...compared to USA for those same years.

Australia3333

United States34343535

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST



Thank you Susie for your honest input here, much appreciated.


SB, I agree with everything you said above. Well said!

There seems to be a rampant misconception that if guns were banned in America all the bad guys would comply and give up their guns. That's ridiculous -- the effect would be that the general population, many of whom would surrender their arms, would be more at the mercy of said bad guys than they are now. And to think that illegal gun runners would quit bringing in more guns if they were banned is equally ridiculous. We all know how well the banning of street drugs has worked to stop illegal drug traffic.

As to gun suicides -- people who are bent on committing suicide will find a way to do so, banned guns or not.

I have weapons, and I will keep them, banned or not.
 

Back
Top