onthebeach,

You mention home burglary. In the US I think (I may be wrong) it is already OK to shoot an intruder if you fear for your life.

I'm not sure about the law in Australia with regard to despatching home intruders .

I heard of a case in Queensland when a man rang the police because he heard an intruder in his garage. The police reassured him they would be there immediately. Twenty minutes passed, no police. The victim rang the police telling them not to hurry, he had shot the intruder. The police arrived within minutes. Finding no body, the asked the victim why he stated that he had shot the perp; his response, why did you state you would be here immediately?

Possibly an urban legend, but demonstrates our own laws re shooting of intruders.

Is Mise,

Australia has never been a gun culture, with an obsession with arms. I have never been in fear of an intruder, or of being threatened with arms whilst in this country. As for an act of terrorism, it is a possibility. But I doubt if much could be achieved by armed persons, untrained and undirected, in a shopping mall. Certainly extra lives would be lost.

The only way it would work would be to have shifts of armed personnel at every public place, personnel not only well trained in this type of defence, but also with someone in charge.

The US is a gun culture. "The right to bear arms, etc." I have US friends who admit that anything is possible over there. They own weapons, as would any intruder who entered their home.

I don't think the US is safer by having guns available to all.

Danielle,

Outside of NSW you not only will be charged if you injure an offender in your home, but you will also face a reversed standard of proof, where it is YOU the victim who is in the dock, obliged to prove you were at risk and that you limited any force to the exact amount or less that was required to retrain the offender. In the court where hindsight rules and very optimistic hopes are held for police to intervene, you are on soft sand indeed.

You appear to have no knowledge of the firearms and weapons regulations, because should the court find that you the homebody and burglary victim used anything that could be construed as a weapon, and there is broad scope for that, you will certainly be charged and punished.

Under the laws, use of a firearm is impossible, stupid and a lay-down misère for serious punishment. At the scene the first act of police will be immediate confiscation of of licence and confiscation of firearms, and likely cuffs as they police usher you the victim off to a cell and interrogation. The political 'Progressives' have ensured that the burglar has rights and you don't.

'Gun culture' is just stereotyping and name calling. Gun crime in the US is almost exclusively gangs, drugs and slums, black on black.

In Australia it is gangs (lower socio-ecomimic group and frequently ethnic as is knife and other violent crime) and drugs. How many times do senior police have to pass comment on the idiocy of importing people from places and cultures where violence is the preferred way of dealing with even minor disagreements?

onthebeach,

Thank you for the information. I did have the impression that shooting an intruder, no matter how much in fear of one's life, was a difficult act to defend in this country.

When I stated that the US has a gun culture, this wasn't meant to be pejorative in the literal sense. it is not only gangs who have arms, but ordinary people. I don't know of any restrictions on obtaining weapons. Even if there were, arms could be sourced illegally. Owning guns is a right. I don't see this. To me, owning arms carries responsibility - not only how to use and handle them correctly, care for them, but also how to store them. It is when these principles are not followed, that disaster strikes.

I have no problem with serious and responsible gun owners. I do have problems with cavalier gun ownership. If the US brought in the proposal, there would have to be a massive cleaning up of guns on the ground, before it could be implemented. It would also mean radical changes in gun laws. I can't see the American people, as a whole, agreeing to
this.

Danielle,

Thank you for your very reasonable reply. The only strong and robust control is the firearms licence. All else is populist politics that wastes taxpayers' money.

The problem in the US is much deeper than the superficial 'gun culture' spin.

As far as the occasional multiple homicide is concerned, the media (and others who should know better) have made multiple killing the gold card access to spectacular coverage, and replayed regularly thereafter. Offenders will use machetes, guns, arson, bombs, you name it, as long as the feckless and irresponsible media are certain to sensationalise it all into a media spectacular, and there are politicians and others seeking self promotion and secondary gains from giving it an egg-beat as well.

onthebeach,

You hit the spot about the media. "If it bleeds, it leads!"