MAMEWorld Forums - Welcome to the War Room

> > > "Natural Rights" You know. Like you have a natural right to breathe. No document or
> > > government entity gives you permission to breathe. Just like nothing gives you
> > > permission to self defense. That's just a natural (God given) right. You don't need
> > > "permission".
> >
> > How do you decide which rights are "natural" and/or "God-given"? Just because it's
> > easy, or it makes sense to you? What about opportunistic theft? That's easy and comes
> > naturally to a lot of people, so how is it not a "natural right"? All "rights" come
> > from ethics/philosophy/religion - they're a very human concept.
>
> "Opportunistic theft" There's another saying; "Do as you will, as long as it hurts
> nobody else."
>
> Well, if you are first accosted, then you also have a natural right to defend
> yourself (e.g. retaliate). It's the law of cause and effect. You don't initiate harm
> unto anyone else unless they first do it to you, your family, or your personal
> property.

See you're applying a moral framework here. There are others whose moral frameworks don't permit violence, even when attacked. You're saying it's a "natural right", but that's only true in your own belief system. Christians with a "strict" interpretation of Luke 6:27-31 ("But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.") and the more orthodox Hindus and Buddhists would say that there's no "natural right" to violent self-defence. Why are you so sure your morals are right and "natural"?

> I mean, it's "easy" for some thug to maybe mug or stab you, or perhaps rape your
> wife. I never said that just because something was easy or "natural" automatically
> made it a right. Breathing and Self Defense were merely basic examples. No single
> thing can take that away from you. Nothing can, nor should forbid it.

Once again, you're asserting that your ethics are natural - that the things you consider immoral are immoral in the absolute, and the things you consider to be "natural rights" are also rights in the absolute. What grants you the moral authority to make these claims?

> > But that aside, if you feel you need a gun for self-defence, you live in a violent,
> > fucked-up society. Most of us don't want to live in a place where carrying a gun
> > day-to-day is something that has to enter one's mind. I've got friends who moved from
> > South Africa to Australia for that very reason - they want to live in a society where
> > the thought of needing a gun doesn't even enter your mind. Yet you seem strangely
> > insistent on maintaining a situation where you need a gun to protect yourself from
> > all the bad guys with guns.
>
> Okay. Let's take guns out of the picture. What if they outlawed all forms of martial
> arts training? Or what if they made it illegal for you to harm a burglar that broke
> into your home? Would that, in any way, seem fair?

Well, that actually varies by state in Australia. In NSW, if someone attacks you, the law lets you beat them up pretty badly without being prosecuted. Now I can make a sport of this: I can walk through a rough neighbourhood trying to attract the attention of ne'er-do-wells in the hope that one will try to mug me, and then turn on them to beat the shit out of them.

However, in Victoria, the law puts a fair bit of emphasis on proportional response. Even if someone else starts it, you have to be damn careful not to fuck them up, or you're going to be prosecuted. Is it more fair? Obviously someone thought so, and it means you can't make sport of trying to lure disadvantaged people and beat them up.

Most religions, including Christianity and orthodox Judaism, frown on vindictiveness. "An eye for an eye" is about proportional punishment, as in you don't kill someone for just blinding you in one eye. This is completely lost in politicians' "tough on crime" rhetoric.

> I had been wondering about something since you replied to another one of my posts the
> other day.
>
> Who exactly has any guns there in Australia? I'm sure the police do. But given the
> argument you gave the other day of anyone even having a gun on their person greatly
> increases the chances that Armageddon will happen. I mean, someone taking the gun and
> using to shoot all the people. (sorry, can't help but to get sarcastic here). So
> absolutely nobody has any kind of gun what-so-ever, not even the cops? But
> seriously... It does seem like it was said that some farmers are allowed to have
> rifles, for the purposes of protecting their livestock, or maybe hunting.

Obviously the majority of police carry firearms in Australian, generally 9mm automatic pistols. Military are also armed, which goes without saying. Security guards can carry handguns, but a significant proportion of them don't, simply because by having more guns around, things are more likely to escalate into gunfights. The security guards who ride armoured cars usually carry handguns, but e.g. shopping centre security and crowd control at concerts don't.

About one quarter to one third of Australians have licensed firearms. There are a significant number of unlicensed firearms as well. Farmers have rifles for shooting 'roos, feral dogs, and feral pigs, some people like to shoot at the range, etc. Very few people have a gun for "safety", it's just not something you need. We don't carry them around in public places, either - you're supposed to have your gun in a secure container when you're carrying it but not actually using it to hunt or shoot targets or whatever.

Most criminals don't carry guns either. There are occasional mob hits where they'll assassinate a particular person. For example Des "Tuppence" Moran got shot at a café having his morning coffee. Whether or not he had his own gun on him, he wouldn't have had a chance. Hit-men don't give the game away until it's too late. If there's a price on your head, you need to pay a full-time security guard to look out for you (cf Mick Gatto). Wannabe thugs occasionally shoot up each others' houses, too. Having your own gun doesn't help there, either. They drive up while you're sleeping, and by the time you're out of bed, they're gone and all that's left are the bullet holes.

The net result is that there's almost zero chance of being shot randomly. Things just don't escalate into gunfights without guns everywhere.

> ETA: Are there very many crimes in Australia?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Australia
>
> http://www.crimestats.aic.gov.au/NHMP/
>
> That's probably nothing compared to 'Merica.

There are some neighbourhoods where break-ins are a problem (e.g. some of the southern suburbs of Perth where one in eighteen houses has been burgled). They'll generally case you out and make sure they break in when no-one's going to be home.

Sadly, most violent crime in Australia is domestic violence - husbands and wives assaulting each other - and most murders are domestic murders. Guns usually aren't involved, even when the people have access to them.

Australia has more violent crime than places like Japan and Hong Kong, but less violent crime than a significant proportion of Western democracies. Australia has 1.3 murders per year per 100,000 residents, compared to 5 murders per year per 100,000 residents, so significantly lower. The reported rape rate is apparently 5% higher than the US (be aware that non-consensual oral or digital penetration is considered rape in Australia, while in the US it's not included in rape statistics, as it's defined as sexual assault).

There are some useful stats on this site: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime
Just be aware some of the comparisons are misleading because different countries have different legal definitions of crimes (e.g. in Canada, a lot of what would be called "rape" in the US is called "sexual assault", while Sweden defines a lot of what the US calls "sexual assault" as "rape" - Sweden's huge increase in rape is the result of changing the legal definition of rape to include more things, not an actual change in crime rate).

Really, I think the number of guns is neither here nor there. The proportion of households with licensed guns in Australia is pretty similar to the US. I do think it's important to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, and not to drag society into a state where it's expected that there are guns everywhere. When you expect others to have guns, you start carrying guns, and when there are guns everywhere, volatile situations escalate into gunfights.