"Police losing fight against blade culture as stabbings escalate"

Headline in 'Sun-Herald, Sydney,August 26, 2007.

The laws don't seem to be working, can anything be done or ought we to just give up?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/police-losing-fight-against-blade-culture-as-stabbings-escalate/2007/08/25/1187462584853.html?s_cid=rss_national

In China with 1.3 billion people with no social security,poverty you are much safer there than here.The answers are there,we just don't have the political will or the guts to tacle the problem.Start with taking on our left leaning legal system.

Arjay ~ How do you figure 'you're' safer in China than here?.

The only way to curb criminal activity is to make it undesirable to do it. Through legislation. People have been arguing for tougher sentencing for decades. Still, the government won't listen.

StG longer sentences does not deter crime! When was the last time you heard someone say they stab a bloke or rob a bank because they would only do 10 years in long bay? They commit crimes with the intention of getting away with it! 1 year or 10 years they don’t care because they are under the mind set that they wont get caught!

STG, I know people who regularly visit China and there are real consequences for anti- social behaviour.The same situation exists in Singapore.The Rattan cane would be a real deterrant in our so called civilised society.Violence is out of control in Sydney and our Govts just pander to socialist's weak kneed do gooders.

Our legal system exists under the pretense of protecting society,when in fact they line their own pockets by protecting the criminals.

The leftist soft on crime, soft on discipline, soft on drugs, soft on criminals has led us to the place of the violence we have. They love to quote their dogmas about harsher penalties not preventing crime however they ignore places like Singapore where anyone can feel safe walking the streets. What chance have we got when we drug our kids in order to address behavioural problems and tell them they evolved from monkeys.

SOLUTION TO KNIFE ATTACKS.

1/ Minimuze your exposure to places where these can occur (but don't becaome an agoraphobic :)

2/ Get some training on how to deal with varios kinds of knife attack.
(some can be quite effective)

3/ Revisit values of respect which we basically through out in the 60s

4/ Throw out totally any idea of 'Multi-culturalism' (difference is a source of conflict, conflict is a source of knife attacks)

5/ Spot checks of likely carriers of knives.. 2 times busted and 'your out' for a few yrs.

6/ Learn from Paul Hogan in Croc 2 "You call THAT a knife....." :)

and so it goes on.....

90% of the crime problem in Australia and most of the western world is either to get money for drugs or an offshoot reason that still has to do with drugs. Legalize drugs and the need for large amounts of money to buy them goes away thus reducing much of the petty and violent crimes that occur in our society.

Tough on crime does not work. Ask the Romans they fed criminals to the lions and made them fight as gladiators……. This still did not stop people from committing crimes in Rome because as I said before when they commit the crime their intention is not to get caught.

Tackling the crime problem you have to look into the reasons as to why people commit crimes in the first place and go from there

EsayTimes...how about we rid the country of a judicial system altogether?. Seeing as you believe that sentencing has zero effect on the mindset of people who commit crimes.

How about if you were to be fined $5000 for going 10 km per hour or more over the speed limit. Would that deter you from speeding?. (obviously hypothetical)

How about if you car was crushed if you were caught drink driving three times?

Generally people don't commit minor crimes because most of us believe it just isn't worth it. I could flog 2 grand from work, no dramas...why don't I?...conscience and payoff. What would I lose for doing it?.

We can't possibly get to the root of all crime because it's not just one root. It's many and varied. And most crime stems from laziness and greed.

Sorry, that should be 'caught drink driving once'...get your car crushed, no claim on insurance.

Stop bringing in lebs and Asians! who form these groups and use knives.

FACT crime has trippled if not more in the magristates courts Australia wide and three out of four offenders are from leb or Asian back grounds.

Gangs have increased to an terrifying rate. You have leb groups and chinese groups who use knives and guns.
Wake up Australia.

Do you want to give your water to these people.
I dont.
SOME ARE OK.

If somebody offends send them back- .
No second chances.
That will kurb some of it but not stop it .

Now just watch everybody rush in and say I am a racist.
The only racist thing we have here is not allowing the ordinary Australian Citizen to speak the truth.

It is the PEOPLE who have to try to live and work and raise their kids in these suburbs that know the facts.

The fact is Lakemba Bankstown Chester hill Sefton Regents Park and many other areas USED to be safe to let your kids walk to the shop or even play in the park ina group on a hot summer evening.

All the kids would catch a train together and go off to the baths on a hot summer night ann you knew they were safe together.
That is not the case anymore.

Look at Cabramatta and Merrylands as well. You dont see kids playing in the park there now.
All you see are gangs.
the really scarey part is now those kids have kidsof their own.
Born here!
You cant make a silk purse out of a soars ear no matter how nice and kind you are to these people.
They have a backgroundofvolience and we should help them improve their own countries insteadof bring ours to their level of sorting it out with knives.

Wake Up Australia.

"Stop bringing in lebs and Asians!"

NO TABBOULEH! NO SUSHI!

Clearly, the answer to knife attacks is to issue everybody with a gun. And to ban immigration of 'lebs and Asians'.

Gee Morgan. I didnt know you were bright enough to see that - Yes it really IS that simple.

Oh and deport the home grown ones who use knives as well. Leave theones who obey our laws and sincerly want to have a better life here and bepart of Australian culture.
Knives are not an Aussie thing.

My day if two blokes had a difference to sort out they would take off their coat jacket and fright it out like men.

Not sneak up like a snake in the grass abd stab somebody.

How low is that!

You dont get much lower Morgan and its "their" custom.

It tells you a lot about people when they think thats ok- even cool.

You know Morgan many of them our PROUD of this type of behavoiur.

I note you not arguing with me about the fact that most knifes attacks are NOT main stream Aussies but people from a different culture and back ground.

Some years ago they did a lot of research into the conjestion in the Magistates courts.

It was discovered that crime and knife attacks had trippled and it was coming mainly from these people.

We need to set up another magistates court to hear some of these cases so the rest of us can get on with cases left hanging because of the shear volume of increase.

Just for the record morgan ANYBODY from ANYWHERE using knifes should go.
If they are Aussie kids they can go too!
Seeing as they like that life style why deny it to them
We could set up an exchange system.
KNIFE ATTACKS. AUSTRALIAN CITZENS SAY NO!

Easy Times
Easy Times said-

"Legalize drugs and the need for large amounts of money to buy them goes away thus reducing much of the petty and violent crimes that occur in our society."
PALE replies
Spot on Easy times!
Let me tell you a quick story I was told byan old greek Crime boss many years ago.
There was a little Island in Greece. A lovely little spot that was a favouite with the locals to take your sweetheart for walks.
Pretty as a picture.
Sadly it became a havern for kids drugs dealers and it was a regular sight to see the police and fights.
Its became politically embarresing especially for toursists so they tried to move it on.
Raids Police and a fortune spent but still it continued.

Then somebody got the idea to do nothing.
Each weekend you would see people coming looking for their
people they knew who had OD there.
Much screaming and crying was to be heard as the familes would come to carry their lost one away.
Brothers and Sisters carrying their brother or sister.
Those ones learnt what drugs did.
After a while to Island returned to a sad silence and you can not see a needle there to this day.
' the moral of the story is some lesson can only be self taught.
Oh and that the somebody who suggested it was right. Amazing what good advise old crime bosses can give police if they really want to help isnt it.


Thank you
Easy times

Knee-jerk postings. Doncha love 'em.

I particularly like the way all the blame falls on "the Left", and then we find that China is held up as an example... not of being "Left", but of keeping violence in check.

Just how far left do you have to go before you get to communism, Arjay?

And this is classic from PALE:

>>Now just watch everybody rush in and say I am a racist.
The only racist thing we have here is not allowing the ordinary Australian Citizen to speak the truth<<

And the "ordinary Australian Citizen" you have in mind wouldn't by any chance be... white?

Didn't think so. Perish the thought you might be racist.

I believe that in today`s modern society, any person who attacks another using a knife as a weapon, is exercising and demonstrating the intent to wilfully kill or maim the victim! If this aggressor when apprehended and tried, is convicted beyond a shadow of doubt, he or she should be executed, thus setting a precedent for other potential knife-wielding aggressors!(An exception to this would apply where for example persons being attacked in their own home and who grabbed a knife to defend themselves,....but again dependent upon the decision of the court or the judiciary findings!)

At least noone has suggested that we be stopped from using knives...

I don't know the stats but I suggest that the Lebanese thing is a media construct. I suspect that the knife problem is home grown.

On that basis my speculation is that we should consider whether child rearing practices are adequately instilling the appropriate values in people and what can be doné about it.

Sure flogging graffiti artists or knife wielders might scare them, religious converstion might be an answer, and drugs might relate to a lot of crime, but we seem to focus on dealing with symptoms rather than causes. I honestly don't think that viewing people as bad, probably drugos, and in need of being booted in line properly addresses that fact that many people are willing to do things they wouldn't have considered doing even 40 years ago.

For example: We have used guns for many centuries but only in recent years did people decide to open fire in their class room. We have had had poor and disadvantaged for thousands of years at least but only now are they considered suitable to set on fire. There has been hatred of priests as early as the 16th century but only now is it okay for a large group of youths he asks to stop trespassing to surround one and threaten to bash him only stopping when he gets surprisingly aggressive.

I think the problem is more fundamental than knives or drugs or Lebs.

StG I never said sentencing has zero effect obviously you need jail as a form of deterrent but how much jail is the question?

What most people fail to grasp is that we need to tackle the reason behind why people commit crime. I believe and it has been proven that a very large amount of it is drug related.

Sure there are organized crime gangs that plan together for weeks to rob a place of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars are doing it for greed. But the idiot who holds a gun to the head of a petrol station employee so that he can steal $500 out of the till and a few packs of cigarettes is merely showing how desperate he is seeing that this particular idiot could get himself 10years in jail for that act.

Legalizing drugs and having the government distribute them to users as the long as the user agrees to go on a detox program could be on of the greatest if not the greatest leap forward in crime prevention the world has ever seen.

The reasons why places like Singapore and China have such a low crime rate is 1. to do with their culture and 2. because drugs are not common there and thus a major reason for people to commit crimes is not present.

You can see my views on drink driving here - http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=309#5376

What a sorry set of ideas. Violence to be managed by... killing people. Nice.

A few points:
1) It is not wise to go unarmed in a society where others may without warning try to murder you. That is what our drug culture offers the heavy users, petty dealers and gang members, who are unprotected by the law as it stands.

2) The part of deterrence that works is not the severity of the sentence but the likelihood of getting caught and suffering some penalty.

3) Gang cultures go unchecked, leading to competing gangs fighting each other, because we are unable to police their violence effectively. To deter gang violence our society needs to be a more effective, acting altruistically and paying the cost to defend others lives and property. Part of that is the possibility of RETRIBUTION. Gang members will only respect a society that defends itself effectively, and in an honour culture that must include a threat level for payback against the gang's collective interests.

Proactive enforcement, intelligence gathering and serious targeted hampering have been the strategies of police against the rogue members of outlaw motorcycle gangs. This is not because they want to waste their lives harassing violent antisocial idiots, but to make sure that said idiots get the message that the state is serious about payback.

Similar heavy-handedness is needed against those who create the culture of violence with knives in our society - drug dealers and users, gang members and known criminals.

And ORDINARY PEOPLE are the ones in the threat zone. They need empowering - by technology tools such as cellphone functions for calling 'hue and cry' from nearby citizens, cellphone cameras to grab evidence and quickly get the police backing up citizens looking out for each other. One great model is the St John Ambulance Ready Responder system, and another is the Mines Rescue Squad system. Citizens can be more than victims.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=street+crimes+increased+ethnic+lebanse&btnG=Google+Search&meta=cr%3DcountryAU

The above contains some fact and figures.
By the way I have personally a great deal of time for aboriginal people.
However sadly often aborigninal people want nothing to do with white people.
Anybody who has worked in this field knows these are the true facts.
We have to work very hard to gain their respect and trust.
Just as importantly - So do they.'

I have read all your comments and I dont think its reasonable to have to teach our neighoods to litterally defend themselves because of this high rise in crime.
The Government need to put the Army on the streets like they have in NT
Sort it out now.
keep the good people who respect Australia.
Ship out the others.
Forget goal it only teaches more crime as the crims mix together.
We should keep our neighboods safe from knives guns.
Its the RIGHT of every citizen to be able to walk the street in saftey without being knived.
I would encourage everybody to read the above links
Bye All.

PALE,

Are you seriously demanding the government call out the army to deal with knives?!?

First off, the army is in the NT not as a security force (they are not armed), they are there in a logistical capacity ONLY. Secondly, the only time the Army should be called out armed is in times of armed insurrection (ie a full on armed rebellion). Apart from that, it should like any weapon, be kept sheathed until absolutely necessary.

EasyTimes...I could see the potential benefit in decriminalizing pot. But I still believe harsh sentencing can benefit us as well. I'd never agree to the death penalty.

Knife attacks were the plague of American fifties, sixties and seventies. Remember the switch blades?. It's just a matter of time till we're dealing with more guns.

PALE ~ You're a moron. Racist pig. Get back to saving cows. You've got ZERO idea, and if you're the quality of Hansons support, thank christ that scrag won't make it past the hick bandwagon.

Good grief PALE. You actually agreed with Morgan's facetious comment? You just wrote off the last shreds of credibility you may have had. It's sad really, because I have sympathy for your chief cause of opposing live exports, but the many ploys you've used, including picking and choosing who 'qualify' as farmers as well as emotional rhetoric such as that old 'yabby' chestnut, have turned me off quite considerably. Do the cause a favour and help find them a new spokesperson.

Chrisper - I suspect this is the crux of where we differ - can you provide me examples where vigilante tactics have improved the overall situation of a given community that already has access to viable law enforcement?

I'm of the view that if there is a problem, and I'm not convinced it's nearly as pronounced as most people think is is, then you need to have a properly resourced police force that isn't hamstrung in its duties.

It seems to me that once you decide to arm the populace, you've simply given up on society. Instead of addressing what's causing the problem, you're treating the symptoms in a new way, which I'm quite sure will exacerbate the problem.

When I look around Australian society I certainly don't see the abject failure many seem determined to see - I certainly don't think it warrants arming the public. I for one, feel quite safe on the streets, (and yes, I know there's some dangerous areas out there, but come on, these are the exception not the norm).

Fixing knives with guns doesn't seem very logical to me.

"Knife attacks, what can be done?"
BUY A GUN!

"Gun attacks, what can be done?"

BUY A TACTICAL NUCLEAR DEVICE! That'll show em!

Nuclear attacks. What can be done?

BAN IMMIGRATION OF LEBS AND ASIANS!

NO TABBOULEH! NO SUSHI! NO NUKES!

After reading this thread, you guys are going through the same problems as South Africa.
This knife thing, is becoming pandemic and seems to be the "in" thing with gangs and teenagers. If one looks back at the 50's and 60's it was the same, threatening with knives or other pointed objects.
It's all very well, going to self defense classes and yet this will not help you, should you be faced with two or three assailants, unless of course you are Bruce lee.
One cannot defend one's self if the law prevents us from carrying some type of weapon to defend ourselves, in fact we are not allowed to fight fire with fire, we have to take whats coming and hope we don't die in the process? It's the same ol'situation, you get attacked by someone wielding a knife, you get a lucky punch in and accidently strike him in the throat and kill him, guess who goes to prison?
Justice is sweet no? In other words, according to law, you have take a knife in the gut and try to ward off the person with your bare hands while he/she slashes madly at you and hope he/she tires out before cutting you to ribbons, yeah, right, like hell this will happen! Man or woman holding a knife to me, one chance is all I'll need to take them out.

SPANKY,

Yeah like South Africa except completely not.

South Africa has a sky rocketing crime rate, we do not, South Africa has over fifty years of violent repression of the majority of its population, we do not, South Africa is still trying to find its place after a peaceful revolution, we are not.

According to the latest crime stats from NSW, most categories of crime have remained stable over the last two years with the exception of Murder which has risen by 1.2% and motor vehicle theft which has fallen by 3.5%

Spanky, if you're confronted by a weapon yielding youth, you don't knock him out or hurt him. Heaven forbid. You should calm him down, then ask him if he had a deprived childhood or if he was abused & then, if he is still inclined to stab you, you position yourself so that he can attack you, being mindful that he doesn't get hurt. At the end you offer him your wallet & your keys. That's how the academic do-gooder leftist social engineers want you to behave. We once remanded a young chap in custody (JP Mag situation) for thrashing a big shop & putting the shop out of action for two days with $80,000 damage. A legal aid chap then recommended he not be sent to the lock-up but given an apprenticeship instead. "to get him on the right track" There were several decent young chaps in the community who couldn't get an apprenticeship let alone a job & whilst the useless mug got rewarded with an apprenticeship which he attended for 6 weeks. You can imagine the incentive to the good fellers. Can anyone dig up one of those do-gooder "experts' statements from say, 25-30 years ago ? would be good to rub it in now.

Chaps,

You have to learn to defuse situations.
Bob Brown does a good line in 'Harm Minimisation' techniques.
Learn from him.

People must realise that if they resist the knife armed assailant that they may harm or even kill him, this would never do.
The victim should at all times be cognisant of the fact that the attacker may have had a deprived childhood and anyway what gives the victim the right to assume that just because the attacker is threatening his life that the attacker actually intends harm?

He may be only bluffing; should the victim call his bluff he may well be doing his attacker an injustice.

The victim should consider if the knife is really sharp.
Does it have a point that will easily enter the body?
Is it long enough to reach a vital organ?
Is his life really more important than the attacker's?*

*In the interest of political and gender correctness all masculine references in the above should also be read ss feminine.

Then we are also taught not to look directly at your assailant, as this is taken as a threat and could provoke the situation into him/her actually using the knife.
It's pretty difficult not to do this, as we, being humans, do this unthinkingly as we are apt to look at people whilst being spoken to, at least that is what I was taught.
Now we are faced with: "give me your wallet or I'll stick ya" and having to apologise to the bloke for not looking at him while he's talking to you, trying to calm him down, he's going to be really "pissed" and stick it to you anyway! yep...buy a gun, shoot 'im in the knee cap or something and then quietly ask him if he comes from a depraved childhood and offer him some councelling. Speak in a soft, clear caring voice while shaking like a leaf, after all, you have just had a near death experience of almost being perforated with a six inch blade. This is 2007, it's time to take these matters into our own hands (if one is able to) instead of lying in a pool of blood waiting for the bloody ambulance, which I might add, takes forever to arrive.

Thankfully, we no-longer live in South Africa, we emigrated to Scotland just over a year ago.
The memories of the crime is, as you say, way out of control and escalating at a phenominal rate. Thank goodness you guys don't have that crime rate in Aus.
The time will come when the police can no longer help as there are too few of them and the public will indeed take matters into their own hands and no-one can blame them, yep....need gun!

Perhaps then Spanky, we should consider more police and the powers they have.

As far as your and Is Mise's amusing exaggerated caricature of left wing pacifism, allow me to present an equally distorting caricature of the right.

Naturally, when you see that suspect looking fellow approach, you should review whether or not the colourful clothing he wears is gang colours. If there's a handkerchief tied around his elbow, you'd best gun him down before he gets the chance to attack you.
Then there's those suspicious looking folk with other skin colours - if they're not adopting LA knife culture, maybe they're asians considering emulating the triads. Nevertheless, attack first and ask questions later. It could be dangerous otherwise.
If more than say, two youths are together in one cluster, of course, you should call the police. They're obviously up to no good, and may be plotting to blow up your dog, or worse, join the greens. If you've a knuckle duster handy, put it on. Better yet, get a gun. If they get a gun, better make your gun an assault rifle, and maybe a hand grenade. Even better yet, perhaps we should just stop anyone who isn't a nice, safe white person from entering the country altogether.

Ridiculous and stupid? Of course. But I thought I'd join in the fun.

TRTL,
Defend or die, it all leans toward how one percieves a situation, is it threatening?, or we as the victims, over-reacting through fault of watching too many gang related films? Are we reacting in the way Arnold S would react? Considering the latter, the fact still remains, if ones life is in danger, you will protect, you will defend and whatever the outcome, which is only realised after the adrenaline has calmed, one realises the extent of the damage you have caused to your assailant, one hopes you haven't killed him and only hurt him.
In this day and age, if you kill an assailant, you have to prove he was holding a knife/gun, even while he is lying on the floor with the weapon in his hand! They are right when they say that the law is there to protect you, but WHO in fact is the law protecting?

TRTL,
I was speaking of a knife holding assailant not of someone who may have a knife, dress differently or speak differently or have different skin pigmentation, and while I was being sarcastic, was I wrong on any of the points I raised?

Are we not told not to resist?
Are we not told that the assailant may not really intend us harm?
Have the Greens not said that resistance without knowing the real intentions of the assailant is wrong?
Have they and others not said that the assailant may have come from an abusve background and have a drug problem and that they therefore should not be resisted with sufficient force to make sure that they cannot hurt the victim?

My sarcasm was not exaggeration.
Your's was.

hello everyone
There is nothing wrong with using the Army to get our streets back in order.
The practise would be good for them. No I am NOT suggesting they are armed.
We are short of police and there are some areas out of control.

If they were brought into just a couple of the worste areas it would send out a message. Anybody picked up could serve time in the Army lock up.
STG
Who said I was supporting Pauline.? If you read the thread again it says I support her right to freedom of speech.

It also says I dont think she should have gone to goal.

I dont even KNOW her policy on live exports so I would hardly be throwing my hat in to help.

After saying that- Did you know there is a MOU between Labour and liberal NOT to discuss imagration as an election issue.

Some Aussies want this issue raised. Surley they should have that right.
Your gutter lingo is really no surprise to me and you are kidding yourself if you think I dont support SOME of the people who come to Australia.

In Fact I do at great deal of work with Muslim people and they are aware of problem areas.

I dont pull any punches with them and we get along just fine- most of the time.
Our frindships are based on honesty and the WILL to fix problems.

The facts are as well some of those little darlings running the streets are our own little darlings that butter wouldnt melt in their mouths as far as their too rich too busy parents think!


Muslim leaders need more support from the Government to help them get some good programes off the ground to stop these youths going off the rails BEFORE they join gangs.

It iS a fact that knives are a pretty unAustralian Choice of weapon so you figure it out for yourself.

Do not pretend there isnt a problem with knives and those using them.
Because there IS!

PALE,

The Army's job is not local law and order. Its primary job is to defend this country from outside invaders.

Despite the hysteria that abounds there are no areas that are in armed insurrection, the only valid reason for calling out the army (armed or not). Yes we have crime hotspots, however as I've pointed out before, at least in NSW, the crime rates have remained stable over the last two years and indeed have fallen when compared to four years ago.

SPANKY: "Thankfully, we no-longer live in South Africa, we emigrated to Scotland just over a year ago."

So your experience is relevant to Australia? I've noticed we have a few South African emigrants projecting their experiences in this forum. Thankfully, Australian culture, history and society bear little resemblance to that benighted country.

Is Mise: "Have the Greens not said that resistance without knowing the real intentions of the assailant is wrong?"

Not that I'm aware of. Please provide a verifiable reference.

PALEIF: "There is nothing wrong with using the Army to get our streets back in order."

Sieg Heil!

I think you should all go to South Africa, Texas or Alabama. I think you'd be much happier there than in Australia (or, apparently, Scotland). At the very least, you could carry guns and blow any knife-wielding potential assailant away.

NO TABBOULEH! NO SUSHI! NUKE ISLAM!

"It iS a fact that knives are a pretty unAustralian Choice of weapon so you figure it out for yourself."

Guess who buys the most knives in Australia?
Not kitchen knives but real killing knives.
Ask any business that sells them and the answer will be that the customers appear to be your average Australian.

Carrying a knife (excluding the farmer with his folding pocket knife from the numbers) has been a tradition in this country since 1788.

"Is Mise: "Have the Greens not said that resistance without knowing the real intentions of the assailant is wrong?"

Not that I'm aware of. Please provide a verifiable reference"

Try Hansard (NSW) debate on the Home Invasion Bill which was introduced by John Tingle and eventually became law and was later included in a Government Bill.

There have also been numerous public statements, by the Greens, to the effect that the circumstances of the assailant ought to be taken into account.
There is never, however, any information given or suggestions made as to how the victim is to get this knowledge, nor how, in the time allowed by a life threatening confrontation the victim is to process the pros and cons of doing nothing.

Why should the victim be placed at a disadvantage?
Why should the victim be the one that is forbidden to be armed?

Where were the police when the attack took place?

Well, up until now, we have discussed the issue on how to thwart would-be attackers (in a round-about-way)and still, without a flicker of evidence on how one would in actual fact, let the powers-that-be know, how we all feel and what will happen (god forbid) if one of our loved ones falls prey to one or more of these @rseholes, that seem to enjoy seeing the pain of others.
I am, fortunately (or not) one of those people that would probably lose all sense of humanity, should anything happen to one of my family and I think I speak for many others here.
I suppose if one is not in the situation, you can blab off and say what you would do to the assailant, should you get your hands on him.
It's like a friend of mine once said, if a woman is raped at knife point and the perp. is caught, they should put him in a cell with ten other women who suffered a similar attack, close the door and whatever happens, happens.(I for one would not like to be that guy!

Is Mise: "Try Hansard (NSW) debate on the Home Invasion Bill which was introduced by John Tingle and eventually became law and was later included in a Government Bill."

So you can't actually support your assertion beyond requiring readers to go searching through Hansard?

I put it to you that you've simply made this assertion about the Greens up, and that your subsequent questions don't deserve an answer until you can back it up with an explicit reference.

Well CJ while I search it out amuse yourself by telling us your answers to the questions that I posed, no references are required.

James

Tell that to John Howard and the Premiers of this country because they are doing JUST that to restore Law and order in the NT QLD and Most other states.

Its not hurting the Army or the countries defence but it is helping restore law and order so its safe to walk on the streets.

AS a matter of fact you might be surprised how much local knowledge they would gain that might be of great assistance.

Same Difference

CJ.
Here is part of the text of a Greens' speech in the NSW Upper House.

(quote) The Greens oppose the Home Invasion (Occupants Protection) Bill for the same reasons as the Attorney General set out in his speech on the second reading of the Hon. J. S. Tingle’s bill, which the Government opposed, on 8 May 1997. He raised some very pertinent points which are still relevant to this amended bill. On that occasion he said:

The Government has taken the view that there are aspects of the bill which are unnecessary and, I must say with great respect, dangerous, and that therefore the bill ought to be opposed. ... {edit for word limit]...The Greens are most concerned about how the bill will impact upon intruders who perhaps steal for social or medical reasons. Many drug addicts pay for their drug habits by stealing from dwelling houses.

The Greens consider drug addiction to be a social and health issue. Additionally, some people with insufficient money due to lower socioeconomic circumstances may steal from dwellings so that they can survive. While the Greens do not condone this sort of conduct in any way, we are concerned that these types of people may be violently attacked, perhaps even killed, whilst carrying out a robbery. Yet this legislation will legalise brutal attacks on such individuals. The Greens are concerned that the requirements of proportionality would be significantly weakened through this legislation. The Greens do not agree with people taking the law into their own hands. We prefer intruders to be prosecuted through the court system (un-quote)

Thanks Is Mise, but what does any of that have to do with knife attacks? There is no suggestion in the article with which you began this thread that knives are particularly associated with home invasions - in fact, 'home invasions' aren't mentioned at all in the article.

Is Mise wrote "Have the Greens not said that resistance without knowing the real intentions of the assailant is wrong?
Have they and others not said that the assailant may have come from an abusve background and have a drug problem and that they therefore should not be resisted with sufficient force to make sure that they cannot hurt the victim?"

As I put to you, they didn't say that at all. Rather, in the context of a debate about 'home invasion' legislation, they suggested that some perpetrators of of this type of crime may do so because of drug/health problems. Nothing at all about knife attacks and not resisting them.

As I implied, your gratuitous swipe at the Greens was not based on fact, rather your own inference that their statements in parliament about another issue entirely would mean that they would adopt the exaggerated attitude you've invented for them with respect to knife attacks as described in the article.

You haven't provided evidence that the Greens have made the claims that you attribute to them - rather, you've provided evidence of your own, typically disingenuous inference. This thread, including your silly questions, is not worthy of serious consideration.

Face it, Is Mise - you're a paranoid gun nut who just wants to rabble rouse and slander those who don't share your violent fantasies.

I agree with C J Morgan,
This thread is running all over the place! keep to the thread and stop getting up-close and personal.

Well, CJ, I do see a connection .
Knives are used in home invasions and the Greens do think that the victim should be the one on whom the decision as to wheather the assailant has fallen on hard times should be taken into account.

Do I Greens bash? Of course I do. They need to be 'bashed', as an illustration of their utter unfitness to represent even the outer fringes of society let me offer Ian Cohen's outburst against 'Vegemite'

(Q)Wacko Greens MLC Ian Cohen [edit] called for Vegemite to be taken off the shelves because it might contain Genetically Modified (GM) ingredients.

According to the CSIRO "There has not so far been a single report of any GM food causing adverse health effects in humans"^. Despite this, the Greens ran a scare campaign against Vegemite without any scientific basis.

Observe Ian Cohen's Green Hysterics:

"Parents spread it on their children's sandwiches everyday. The very wellbeing of Australia's children may be at stake," he said. (un-Q)

http://www.greenswatch.com/wacky_greens.aspx

Link to Greens Watch, worth a laugh or whatever.

Just one more point, CJ, look up 'ad hominem', there's a good chap.

I don't know...
With all this whacking and bashing going on between you two, who the hell needs a knife?
Just cave each others heads-in with a brick, it works just as well you know?
In any event, the use of knives for other than what they were intended for, is a sly and sick way to inflict injury or death and totally against the use of them.
I collect samurai swords..should a would-be assailant try his luck with me, he will without doubt, limp away six inches shorter.

Is Mise: "Do I Greens bash? Of course I do."

And you have every right to do so, but I suggest in future you do so a bit more honestly. You ostensibly started this thread about the supposed peril of knife attacks, but now you acknowledge that wasn't really your purpose.

I'm just keeping you honest, old chap.

For example, perhaps you'd like to come clean about your association with the Shooter's Party? Next to that bunch of gun-toting frootloops, the Greens are positively mainstream.

Spanky,

You've wandered in between diametrically opposed points of view, perhaps.

I think that the victim should be allowed to resist to whatever extent
that he/she thinks is necessary to render the assailant incapable of further attack.
I also think that any intruder into a person's home should not be given any advantage.
Someone looms up over your bed in the middle of the night then it should be their bad luck.
That it turns out to be someone who is drunk and wandered into the wrong house is bad luck, for them. They're the one who decided to get drunk.

The other point of view is that the assailant has rights and that those rights should be respected and even to the extent of placing the victim at a further disadvantage.

This is where the Greens and their supporters tend to get a mite hysterical.

Is Mise: "I think that the victim should be allowed to resist to whatever extentthat he/she thinks is necessary to render the assailant incapable of further attack.
I also think that any intruder into a person's home should not be given any advantage.
Someone looms up over your bed in the middle of the night then it should be their bad luck.
That it turns out to be someone who is drunk and wandered into the wrong house is bad luck, for them. They're the one who decided to get drunk. "

Actually, I think you'd find that the Greens have no problem with any of that, and in any case reasonable defence is lawful in all jurisdictions and under the common law, as far as I know. If, however, you're suggesting that it's reasonable to 'shoot first and ask questions later', then that's another thing altogether.

You are begining to get the picture, CJ.
"Shoot first and ask questions later" is probably the best description of the position that the victim usually finds himself in.

Unfortunately it is not an option in this country where the attacker has arms but the law-abiding members of society, the victims, are not allowed to be armed.

So can someone answer the question?

What to do if attacked by a criminal with a knife?

Your practical wisdom might save a life.

The greens are kkk perhaps?
It certainly sounds like it.
Wander here, wander there, wander wherever the hell you like, it still comes down to the fact that the knife attack issue and what can be done, has taken leave on this thread and if one looks at the demise and interest lost on this thread, one is able to see why, take a look Il mise and you will see what I'm talking about.
The law themselves are supposed to curb possession of knives and any other form of weapon. One cannot totally eradicate them from our everyday lives and their use on unsuspecting people, we use them to eat with and unfortunately to hurt people with, so the whole purpose of this thread was to actually "vent" on the people you refer to as "greens" and has absolutely nothing to do with knife attacks what-so-ever.
Sorry Il Mise, this thread has become a dud....cheers!

Spanky,

There were plenty of posts before I mentioned the Greens, if they have a problem with people defending themselves then they come into the discussion.

In today's Sun-Herald there is a letter pointing out that the police in NSW have solved 13 of the 15 knife murders mentioned in the article. All to the good but not of much consolation to the families, loved ones and friends of those murdered.

So back to the question that so few seem willing to answer.

What can be done?
More importantly what can be done that will be effective?

Is Mise,
Lets look at your question "Knife attacks. what can be done?"

Body armour? Really smelly aftershave? A pack of rottweilers?

Somehow, somwhere, if the perp is going to use a knife, he'll use it, whether in a crowded train station, a bus stop, in the dead of night, it's silent and quick, easy to conceal and doesn't take much to find a vital spot if he gets up close and personal. This is why they use a knife.
The presence of police, although ever present in most places, cannot be everywhere at once, it's all up to the individual as to how he is able to tackle a situation.
Although it's against the law to carry a weapon for self defence, it still boils down to the fact of fighting fire with fire, otherwise the authorities would have to carry out a psychological assessment of individuals, to enable them to carry self defence weapons so as not to use them other than to protect themselves.
We live in a society where we as humans will find ways to evade the laws laid-down to protect, but who protects those who protects us? Ourselves!

Do I read you right, Spanky?
Are you saying that it is ultimately up to us to protect ourselves?

Smelly after shave is OK, by the way, but body armour is illegal.

Is Mise,
Picture this:
You walk home at night from being out to the movies, you walk past a back entry between two buildings, a guy jumps out and holds a knife to your throat, what do you do?
You can do either one of three things:
1)Give the guy what he wants (hopefully in this day and age, it's not a sexual thing)
2)Calmly speak to him and avoid eye contact and try to diffuse the situation, then give him what he wants, hopefully, it's your wallet he's after and again, not as outlined in (1)
3)whilst speaking calmly to him, look and feel around for something resembling a house brick and chance that he's not going to give you a second mouth!
Yes... I am saying, that in the end, if push comes to shove and no help is at hand, defend yourself, because by the time anyone has seen the trouble you are in and by the time the police show-up, the guy has probably gutted you and left you for dead, at least you will have tried.
Some of these "bar stewards" just pig stick you for no rhyme nor reason and they get away with it, at least gouge his eye out or something, even if he has stabbed you, chances are, the stab wound you get might be superficial(then again, as luck would have it, maybe not) but at least you will have given him something to think twice about.
Being in a position where there are two or more assailants to face up to, would make one think, what the hell are you doing in that type of neighbourhood anyway?

Good, Spanky, we agree that resistance is OK.

My preferred option is to appear to give in then deliver a stiff two fingers to the eyes and if successful a swift kick to the 'family jewels', to make sure of one's safety.

Anything further would, though understandable, warrant prosecution.
Best to leave the scene.

Is Mise - it may warrant prosecution. In practice, in most cases, self defence is accepted as just that.

The prosecution you describe is the exception, not the norm.

Again, I reiterate,
Many people will "talk the talk" but will not in actual fact, "walk the walk", by this I mean there are a lot of people out there who are big mouths who say they would "take the guy's head off" or permanently maim the guy, but be in the situation, it's a whole different ball game.
There you are, minding your own business, out for a stroll thinking of nothing of importance and there he is, a knife mm from your jugular (doesn't this sound over the top?) your mind is all of a sudden in a flat spin, scared, angry, nervous, shaky and your eyes all over the place trying to get a glimpse of that blade he's holding. You can do what you like, the last thing on your mind is "how the hell can I take this guy out?"
It takes longer than you think for reality to set-in and before you know it, it's all over and THIS is what the attacker thrives on, this little part between the instant he showed-up and the instant he leaves, is all a blurr and in that instant, he's done what he aimed to do, even stabbed you and taken your wallet.
You do get those who react out of instinct, pure adrenaline and it's these people the attacker must be aware of, because this type of person can actually throw caution to the wind and probably ends-up killing the guy, guess who's up for the high jump?

Is Mise,
While we are on the subject, lets not forget the fact, that the attacker is not always a scrawny thing lurking in the shadows with a knife ready to pounce on you, what happens if the guy resembles a mac truck and he's holding you by the throat?
Then I suggest you give him your wallet with a smile and a shaky handshake, kiss his @rse and polish his boots, 'cos there's not a hope in hell of trying gouge this guys eyes out!... try crying maybe?

TRTL,

What I said was anything else after you have disabled him and are now in a position of relative safety.

I can assure you that if, after he's gone down, you 'put the slipper in' and break a few ribs or start kicking his head then the police will (though understanding) will charge you.

If I may throw in a little story; I once lived in Auburn (Sydney) and our next door neighbour was a man in his 60s, ex-steelworker, fuelman on the railway aka 'coal shoveller' and pugilist.
He came back to his car, up the town, and discovered a husky 18 year old attempting to steal it. One word led to another and fisticuffs commenced.
When the police arrived the youth was on the ground, much the worse for wear, and the old bloke was pounding the youths head on the pavement.

The sargeant explained that the only reason that he was not going to lay charges against the neighbour was that the disparity in ages would make the case a bit of a giggle. He probably had other reasons.
This all happened in the 1940s, today such police discression could not be hoped for.

How many people actually die from knife attacks? Just think yourself lucky we don't have a gun culture like the US.

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172718773

Freediver,
Hear,hear! Just pray it doesn't get that way.
Looking at the brighter side (if there is one) at least, if you are lucky and able, you can out-run a knife.

While getting away and while having a quick 'stomache settler' in the next big well lit pub, spare a thought for the ones that can't run fast.

Spare just a wee thought for the ones in a home invasion.

'I'm alright, Jack'.

Err...yeah, that as well!

Also spare a wee thought for the ones who who'd rather face a knife than a gun.

and a thought for those who'd rather face a knife with a gun...spare a thought for the victms.

And spare a thougt for those who'd rather face a gun with a gang of bikies. And maybe a nuke. And perhaps a squad of assassins with dobermans and a satellite guided laserbeam...

TRTL,

Just why are you on the side of the criminals?

What possible justification is there for denying law abiding people some protection.

The State bans the law abiding from having any protection handy in the home or anywhere else, not only guns but it is an offence to keep anything for the purpose of defence. Pressure Pack Oven cleaner is OK in the kitchen but is an offence in the bed room.
However a fire-extinguisher may be kept in any room in the home provided that the stated reason for having it is as fire protection.

Different perspective Is Mise. I don't recall saying I'm on the side of criminals. I believe it's inevitable that when a piece of equipment that has been designed to kill things is increased in quantity, it will be most likely to be procured by more people who wish to kill things.

There's a simple argument - the US has far more lax gun control laws than culturally comparable nations such as Australia, Britain or Canada. They also have a proportion of gun related deaths that is so far beyond these nations, it's sick.

That's as far as the argument really needs to go. That's the ultimate fact. There are all kinds of tangents and alternative interpretations, but that's the cold, hard end of the matter.

Is Mise - putting aside the situation of home invasion for just a moment, what would be your view of carrying handguns in public.

In Australia, I've never seen anyone who wasn't either a police officer or member of the military, carrying a handgun in a public place.

This relieves me. When I step outside into the street, I don't want to see guns in holsters. I don't want to see people carrying guns, and I don't want concealed guns being carried.

Do you? In all honesty, is that what you would prefer? How? Why?

I'm not in favour of the criminals. I just don't want Australia to follow a path that has categorically resulted in increased deaths.

As for skyrocketing crime, the overall figures are pretty static. By and large, we live in a safe nation. I don't want that to change.

Is Mise,
Yes, you could bash your assailant over the head with a fire extinguisher, providing you are strong enough to lift the damn thing!

TRTL,

Pre 1996 there was no problem associated with those persons that the various Commissioners of Police considered suitable to be issued with a licence to 'Possess, Use and Carry' a pistol.

i don't see where there would be any problem now. There were never licences issued for 'open carry' although people used to open carry in the bush, on their own property etc.

The abolition of personal protection use has only made the lot of the criminal easier.
It follows that anyone who denies the law-abiding citizens the opportunity to have personal protection fnds themselves on the side of the criminal.

Had I my way any law-abiding person would be trusted to carry a weapon if they so desired. They are trusted with powerful motor cars and trucks and as much petrol and matches as they like so why not some low powered little hand gun that has much less potential for harm?

Spanky,

As you well know (I hope !) fire extinguishers come in many sizes, from tanker down to little ones for use in the car.

There is a size for every occasion!

OOOOH!...

Spanky,

There is also an occassion for every size !

AAAHHHHH!

Is Mise: "It follows that anyone who denies the law-abiding citizens the opportunity to have personal protection fnds themselves on the side of the criminal."

That's one of the most spurious things I've ever heard.

Surely you're not foolish enough to actually believe that's the case. I may as well just say people in favour of carrying guns would like to see more people shot. It's about as logical.

Wanting to restrict gun proliferation is about reducing violence. Whether you agree with it as effective or not is beside the point when assessing motivation.
To claim those arguing for these restrictions are doing it to aid criminals is simply childish.

Nuances.

I said 'finds themselves on the side of the criminal'
not that they wished to be/were on the side of the criminal.

Should a farmer's wife, alone at home, the men away at the cattle sales (whatever) be denied a gun within easy reach?

Is Mise: "Should a farmer's wife, alone at home, the men away at the cattle sales (whatever) be denied a gun within easy reach?"

What for - to protect herself from the knife-wielding home invaders lurking in your imagination?

CJ Morgan, banning immigration of "Lebs and Asians" doesn't mean you can't eat tabbouleh or sushi.
Buy a recipe book, you lazy bourgeois.
Stop expecting the "peasants" to do your cooking for you.

Now, let's get "tough on thugs":
Only 36% of robberies involve weapons.
But of those *armed* robberies, knives are used in at least *55%*, guns in only 15%.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi080.html
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi127.html
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2005/04_selectedOffenderProfiles.html#fig071

Most crimes are commited by:
1. Males.
2. Aged 15-24.
3. Using drugs.
4. 20% using knives in their offences.
5. Most are repeat offenders.

You don't need to be a genius to see a picture here.

If a young man (yes, pragmatic sexism) is arrested and tests positive for an illegal drug or is obviously intoxicated (even by alcohol), they need to be "dried out" before proceeding any further.

We need facilities for this in every major population centre.
Police stations are not appropriate.

Once "dried out", arrangements for counselling and rehabilitation can begin.
This should be done *automatically*, not requiring a court order.

As most crimes are by *repeat* offenders, any repeat offender charged with a violent or armed offence, should be *detained until trial*.
No bail.

Prior convictions *must* be presented as prosecution evidence, every time.

And the more prior offences, the stiffer the penalty this time around.
With each new offence, the penalty will *increase*.

If criminals think they'll only get the *same* sentence every time, they'll be more likely to commit more crimes.

If they know the punishment will be *worse* every time, this would definitely be more of a deterrent.

In other words, you aren't judging each crime alone, but also the *cumulative* criminal behaviour.
With an appropriate "cumulative" punishment.

And way too many serious crimes and "You have the right to remain dead".

The executed commit no more crimes.
Ever.

Old Sparky says: "One flick and they're gone".

No, CJ.

The knife weilding tiger snake at the back door, the knife weildng fox at the chickens or the knife weilding chicken hawk and the knife weildng dog at the lambs.

Seems to me that you're a city boy.

There is always the chance that nhe might be attacked by 'humans', it has happened to farmer's wives in the past.

Sorry Is Mise. I thought the thread was about knife attacks.

Actually, I live in the bush and I have dogs, chooks, ducks, snakes, roos, wallabies and the odd cow and horse. But no gun, I'm afraid. Snakes that get too close to the house or chooks get discouraged in other ways, mostly involving a garden spade. There are a few hawks and eagles around, but they don't tend to bother us. There's the odd fox and feral cat, but they seem to be quite happy eating the rabbits.

Every now and again I let one or two of my neighbours in to cull the rabbits, cats and foxes with guns - but I'm fairly sure that personal protection wouldn't factor very highly in their reasons for owning guns. These are, after all, country boys. Mind you, while I have absolutely no objection to people using guns to kill feral animals, if they seem to enjoy it too much then I tend not to get too friendly with them.

Probably unlike you, in my time I've known a few people who've been shot and injured or killed - mostly overseas. Also, my stepfather was murdered in Sydney in the early 1990s with a gun stolen from a farm in NSW, so I guess I feel quite strongly about gun control and regulation.

I'm very glad that our current strict gun laws exist. If we allow people to own firearms for the purpose of personal defence, then we tacitly normalise the use of firearms for offensive purposes.

If somebody attacks you with a knife, run away or hit them over the head with whatever's handy. Yes, a gun might be useful in such a situation, but the probability of a knife attack is far too insignificant for that to be a valid reason for carrying a gun.

That road can only to an escalation and normalisation of gun violence, as we see in the USA and elsewhere where the gun culture is valorised.

Shockaholic, given where I live, I tend to make my own tabbouli and sushi. I also grow many of the ingredients - parsley's raging at the moment!

Of course my references to the "No Tabbouleh" idiot are meant to lampoon his/her extreme xenophobia. I would have thought that was obvious.

CJ,
Grow anything else in that little garden of yours?

Indeed, Spanky - flowers are going berserk. Tulips, daffodils, irises, poppies etc etc popping up everywhere.

Spring has sprung! The flowers has riz!

CJ,

Don't ever have a go at a snake with a garden spade or you'll end up like all the good dogs that are adept at killing snakes: very sick or dead.
Most of our poisonous snakes can strike back further than a long handled shovel, so a spade puts you right in the middle danger zone.

It's rather unfortunate that all threads which seek to address violence end up as discussions on using firearms, which are the ultimate deterent in the hands of the law-abiding.

I lost two friends who had a sports store in Sydney, they sold some firearms as well as general sporting goods and back in those days they had their own licenced pistols.

The police advised them however not to resist if they were ever confronted by armed robbers. They were so confronted and took the advice of the police and offered no resistance.
The crims apparently told them to lie on the floor because that's the position that they were in when they were found. Both had been shot in the back of the head.
Now had they drawn their pistols they might have been killed or wounded but at least they would have had a chance, but they didn't and the rest is history.

I've had a mate seriously wounded near me while under fire and had to run for a medic because all other communication was out of opperation, I had Olympic potential as a sprinter that night ! ! !

We do have something in common; the garden, I'm not quite free of frost yet but have a few hardy plants coming on. Amazingly a chili from last year survived the winter.

I know a person who also grows "hardy plants" in his little garden!
One day he'll be arrested if caught.

First and best 'hardy plant' I ever saw growing was at Bathurst Police Station in the '70s, someone had thrown his stash out the window, or maybe cleaned his pockets out, and no one saw the plant until it put its head well up over the fence.
There was about a metre between the station and nextdoor's fence and it was closed by lattice at the front so it seems no one bothered to cut the grass often.

Caused a bit of mirth at the time.

Is Mise: "Nuances.

I said 'finds themselves on the side of the criminal'
not that they wished to be/were on the side of the criminal.

Should a farmer's wife, alone at home, the men away at the cattle sales (whatever) be denied a gun within easy reach?"

So you're saying that those who advocate gun control, regardless of intent, find themselves on the side of criminals.

I see. Though to my way of viewing it, this is an attempt to claim the moral high ground.

By employing the same tactics, I can say that regardless of intent, those focused on restricting gun laws are:

a) On the side of arms dealers. (Even if it's legal as opposed to illegal).
b) Attempting to increase gun violence.
c) On the side of criminals wanting easier access to firearms.

It's not a particularly productive debate, but it's one that cuts both ways.

As for the farmers wife being denied a gun - realistically, what situation is likely where she'll need a gun?

-Snakes? Most of them are more frightened of you than you are of them. In any case, you're better off leaving them alone.

-Intruders? Far less common than attention grabbing headlines would have you believe, especially in a farming area.

-Wild dogs? We've already said we're not against rifles for pest reasons in rural areas. It's the self defence argument and those pushing for handguns that we're against.

All in all, it seems far more likely that the gun would accidently shoot somebody friendly than some far-fetched action-movie style intruder incident.

TRTL,

"As for the farmers wife being denied a gun - realistically, what situation is likely where she'll need a gun?

-Snakes? Most of them are more frightened of you than you are of them. In any case, you're better off leaving them alone.

-Intruders? Far less common than attention grabbing headlines would have you believe, especially in a farming area.

-Wild dogs? We've already said we're not against rifles for pest reasons in rural areas. It's the self defence argument and those pushing for handguns that we're against"

Snakes. If there is one around the house then the best option is to shoot it. Otherwise there is dadger if the kids, especially small ones are allowed out to play. It is illegal to kill snakes unless they pose a danger, one under the house or in the garden poses a danger. By the time the wife gets the gun out of the locker and then gets the ammo out of the seperate locked container the snake will have gone back under the house.
All that I'm saying here is that she should be allowed ready access to the gun.
Say behind the kitchen door and keep a couple of rounds in her apron pocket. Is that to much to ask?

Ditto for foxes and dogs and for anything else that happens along and poses a threat.

Now in real life she is practical and ignores the laws but should she be put in such a situation?

As far as for detering intruders we only ever hear about it when it's not successful. Women have been abducted in country areas and murdered in the past.

Is Mise - you didn't give any reasons why a rifle isn't fine for this situation. The debate has been about the need for handguns and the validity of 'self defence' as a reason for relaxing gun laws.

As for all the things mentioned in the last post, it comes down to weighing up risk. At the end of the day, that's what this comes down to.

Snake attacks and home invasion are both incredibly rare. You claim this warrants guns for protection.

Most Australians find your solution abhorrent and believe it will lead to more death in our country.
Most Australians look at the US gun solution with horror, and we share a similar culture to them.

I'm confident in saying most Australians want nothing to do with your solution. I don't have the statistics handy, but I'm confident all the same.

Handguns ARE designed to shoot people. I grant you that isn't necessarily the case with rifles but it's patently obvious that isn't the case with pistols. They're not made for hunting.
I suppose you can try to make arguments to the contrary, but the reality of the matter is that everyone knows these arguments are simply a facade.

When you consider how many deaths there are from the US approach to gun ownership, it is absolutely ridiculous to advocate that here - it's like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

TRTL,

Firstly the the topic was what could be done about knife attacks, and as usual it got sidetracked.

On the farm, especially where there are small children, snakes are often an almost everyday fact of life. I that I and others seek is that it be LEGAL to keep the shotgun handy, just in case.

You see you can't let the kids go out to play if there is a snake around. A Black Snake can be a danger even though they tend to be timid. Not so the Brown or the Tiger which will attack without more provocation than your presence.

I emphasise the shotgun because if a fox or what ever is backgrounded by the machinery shed then there is no danger to the tractors etc as there would be if a rifle were used, also it is relatively easier to make a hit with a shotgun and as a frightener the big holes at the front end look menacing.

On the numbers of murders in America, these tend to be in the places where self protection is not allowed. Those States that have introduced Concealed Carry have experienced a drop in armed crime.
Wonder why?

In relation to it getting sidetracked, it seems pretty clear that you believe guns are an answer to knife attacks, thus the thread became about rebutting that notion.

I don't see how it's logical to look at the massive gun death toll in the US, then pick out small bits and pieces and try to claim they prove relaxing gun laws won't result in increase gun crime.
It's ignoring the bigger picture and failing to see the forest for the trees.

Allow me an unusual analogy - horse flu.

Until the current outbreak, Australia has been free of the viral disease. Now a vaccination program is underway to try and control it, though it's only operating in buffer zones.

When you look at the number of cases of equine influenza overseas, you see it is much higher.
Though, where vaccinations are brought in, the incidences are reduced.

The thing about vaccinations however, are that they are imperfect. There's always the risk of a sub-clinical infection where the horse could spread the disease.

So, you would never bring in the vaccination if there wasn't a reason. It would be bringing the virus in to the country without gain, and would run the risk of sparking an infection, even though it would also have the potential to contain it. Ultimately, vaccinations are nothing more than deliberate infections of a limited extent.

Now, to bring it back to the guns. The self defence measures in certain areas of the US represent the vaccine.
The US has a full blown case of gun disease - you can look at your minor incidences all you like, but to look at the overall gun death rate, it's patently obvious.
So okay. You can bring in the vaccine in the form of a limited spread of guns.

Australia does not have gun disease. You want to bring in the vaccine, when the figures don't warrant it.

You can go on about knife crime all you want and make arguments based on snakes or whatever, but if you take the overall gun death figures it's patently clear.

25% of Americans own guns.
Do guns cause 25% of all deaths?
No, they actually cause *less*.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

Of the deaths in 2004, USA:
18% were caused by firearms.
More than half the firearm deaths (10% of all deaths) are *suicides*.
Do you think people would stop killing themselves if they didn't have guns?

10% of all deaths are homicides, but only 7% of all deaths are homicide by *firearm*.
So 3% are homicide *without* firearms.
Without guns, people can still find many ways to bump you off!

If guns weren't available to the homicidal maniacs who kill the 7% by firearm, do you think they wouldn't try some other method?

And how many of those would be an average Joe (not career criminals) killing people?
Most firearm homicides are probably criminals killing *other criminals*!

The police are always armed with guns, and are *deliberately looking* for criminals, yet they are responsible for only 2.6% of non-suicidal firearm deaths.

More (or less) guns doesn't equal more (or less) death.
It's a spurious argument.

Some people have said "Grab him here" or "Hit him there".
You're presuming a *lone* attacker.

What if it's a gang of twelve and you see them coming from several hundred meters away, shouting threats.
You can't hit or grab or chat about their childhoods.
But you could shoot.
And they'd be gone (or dead).

If you have a gun, you've a better chance of surviving an attack (especially by a group) than if you're defenceless!

"Grab him here".."Grab him there"...

What happens if: 1) He hasn't got any ?
2) It's a woman ?
3) A transexual ?

Shockadelic, the point of my last post was that it's all well and good to pick and choose bits and pieces that suit your view.

For instance, if we end your post at

"Of the deaths in 2004, USA: 18% were caused by firearms."

So, basically you're saying that in the US in 2004, almost one in five people died from firearm deaths.

It's all well and good to say plenty would have died anyway. As far as the 'suicides' go, perhaps it would be more difficult if they didn't have a gun. Often, suicides are a cry for help, though if you're using a gun, I dare say it's easier to be successful.

Then you say:

"10% of all deaths are homicides, but only 7% of all deaths are homicide by *firearm*. So 3% are homicide *without* firearms.
Without guns, people can still find many ways to bump you off!"

Yeah... but seven out of one hundred deaths were people being murdered with guns! Also a huge number!

Then:

"The police are always armed with guns, and are *deliberately looking* for criminals, yet they are responsible for only 2.6% of non-suicidal firearm deaths."

So more of the gun shootings aren't done by trained police?!
That's really not very comforting.

Ahh... I get it now. You must be secretly arguing for tighter gun control. Very clever.

Correction, I shouldn't have said 'almost one in five people died from firearms'

That should be, almost one in five deaths were from firearms.

Which, alone, really is argument enough.

TRTL,

Pity that you never had the opportunity to study logic.
Over 40 of the contiguous United States of America now have Concealed Carry laws which allow the law abiding to go armed if they wish to do so.
These States have had a drop in firearm related crime and other crimes of violence, since the above laws were introduced.

Now 40+ outa 50 ain't pickin' out little bits, that's taking a look at the big picture.

TurnRightThenLeft: "When you consider how many deaths there are from the US approach to gun ownership"
"I just don't want Australia to follow a path that has categorically resulted in increased deaths."
"They have a proportion of gun related deaths that is so far beyond these nations, it's sick."
"The US has a full blown case of gun disease"
"Massive gun death toll in the US"

How many deaths! Increased deaths! So far beyond! Full blown case! Massive gun death toll!
ARRRGGHHHH!!

I can't stand it anymore, I've got to get outta here!

I'll take care of this. Calm down, get a hold of yourself! (Slap!)

Seriously, 7% of deaths being homicide by firearm is not a "huge number".
No statistician would ever say 7% of anything was excessive.

You're also ignoring that *self-defence* is included in the "homicide" figures.
Some of these deaths are *defensive*, not aggressive.

You're also ignoring that 25% of Americans own guns.
So a 7% homicide rate (including self-defence) is hardly out of control.

"More of the gun shootings aren't done by trained police?!
That's really not very comforting."

Clever (not).
The point is that the death-by-police rate is so *astronomically low*!
Less than 1% of all deaths, and less than 3% of homicides (i.e. non-suicides).

And these are armed people *deliberately looking* for criminals!

Actually shockadelic, seven per cent of deaths being by gun homicide is a very, very big deal.

As for "seven per cent of anything is not excessive, not statistician would tell you that."

That's among the dodgiest mathematical claims I've ever heard.

I dunno where you learned maths, but in statistics it's all about context.
I think if you released a product and found that in only seven percent of cases it killed people, perhaps a few people may find it 'excessive.'
If it's a margin of error you're discussing, it comes down to numbers and again, the context.

Apply your logic.

Even seven per cent of deaths being homicide in general would be huge.

Factor in all the other ways to die.

Heart disease. Cancer. Car accidents, hell, any accidents.

If indeed, seven out of one hundred deaths are people not only being murdered, but murdered specifically by gun, that is indeed a very big deal.

Is Mise - actually, I have studied logic and critical reasoning. You're still looking at a select part of the puzzle. Go back a step to the part where the US has far more gun deaths per capita.
There's your logic.
You're still applying a band aid to a situation created by the gun problem in the first place. I stand by the flu analogy.

Hey you guys,
What the heck, there should not even be a percentage!
Get a grip...pulleaessse!

I hear your sentiments spanky.

The notion that one in fourteen deaths being murder by firearm is insignificant, is pretty damn foolish.

What's more, that's only the actual murders - not the accidents or the police firearm deaths. So the actual gun deaths are even higher.

Like I said, I really can't help but wonder whether shockadelic's actually arguing for or against gun control. It would be a very clever method of arguing, were it coming from a gun control advocate.

TurnRightThenLeft: "As far as the suicides go, perhaps it would be more difficult if they didn't have a gun."

So people *don't* have the right to end their life?
I bet you're "pro voluntary euthanasia".

"If you released a product and found that in only seven percent of cases it killed people, perhaps a few people may find it 'excessive.'"

Firstly, let me correct a misunderstanding.
The mortality figures listed are for *injury* related deaths only, deaths from disease are not included.

Most products aren't designed to be *capable* of killing, and saying if they did it would be a big deal: Well, DUH!
We're not talking about breakfast cereal!

"That's only the actual murders, not the accidents or the police firearm deaths. So the actual gun deaths are even higher."

Police and accidental firearms deaths combined are only 3% of all firearm deaths and 0.6% of injury deaths in general.
Omigod!

Including *all* firearm deaths (including suicide and accidental):
The American heart disease death rate is *22 times* that of firearms.
Cancer: 18.7 times.
Stroke: 5 times.
Respiratory disease: 4.1 times.
Accidents: 3.7 times.

Considering the top 20 causes of death, you are *40 times* more likely to die from disease/accidents than suicide/homicide (the main gun deaths)

Suicide/homicide (and not just from guns) account for only 2.4% of the top 20 causes of death.
If anything's killing Americans, it's not guns, it's heart disease and cancer.

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html

"Ahh... I get it now. You must be secretly arguing for tighter gun control. Very clever."
"I really can't help but wonder whether shockadelic's actually arguing for or against gun control.
It would be a very clever method of arguing, were it coming from a gun control advocate."

Oh, Hee hee hee.
Aren't you clever, trying to discredit my arguments by pretending their yours.
Grow a brain.

Whoa, calm down there tiger.
The huffing and puffing may make for entertaining posturing, but there's really no need for such dramatics. You're sounding like an angry teenager with an axe to grind.

I'm responding to each post as you make it - nowhere in your initial post did you make any point about them being only the 'injury' statistics, so I've responded as such.

So, to rebut more of of your statements:

"So people *don't* have the right to end their life?
I bet you're "pro voluntary euthanasia".

Actually, yes I am. In situations where people have had a proper psychological assessment.

Let me get this straight - do you think it should be easy for people to just commit suicide? What about all the people with depression? Think for a second here - are you seriously going to support this argument?
This is a tangent so I won't put too much of a response here, but if this is something you want to debate then I've got plenty of reasons why this is not a good idea.

In relation to the gun stats - you'd need to prove that the situation isn't worse in the US than in Australia. I can't see the number of gun deaths possibly being lower, given the fact they are much more accessible there.
As I see it, your argument essentially hinges on the notion that many of these gun deaths would have ended up being death by other means - but the fact of the matter is, guns make death much easier.
It's a hypothetical argument so statistically speaking it's damn near impossible to prove or disprove.

I am an angry teenager (at heart; also a hopeful child, a cynical adult, and a mischievous elf).

"Nowhere in your initial post did you make any point about them being only the 'injury' statistics"
But now you know, you still think the gun deaths are astronomical?
Only 2.4% of all deaths are suicides/homicides, and only *1.4%* of all deaths are from firearms.
Out of control!!

""So people *don't* have the right to end their life?
I bet you're "pro voluntary euthanasia".
Actually, yes I am. In situations where people have had a proper psychological assessment."

Oh, so I need some kind of *official approval* of my choosing to die, do I?
Fill out form 72B and step right this way.

"Do you think it should be easy for people to just commit suicide?"

And more "difficult" methods would just produce more injuries and disabilities.
Lose-Lose.

Do you want suicidal people to wind up half-dead, vegetative, disfigured, from a less successful suicide attempt?
That'll really help their depression!

If you're concerned about depression or any other *cause* of suicide, then deal with the cause, not the symptom (gun ownership).

To rephrase the slogan: Guns don't kill the suicidal, the suicidal kill themselves (any way they can).

"You'd need to prove that the situation isn't worse in the US than in Australia."

No, *you* need to prove these people wouldn't have died anyway.
But "it's damn near impossible", right?

Spanky: "Hey you guys,
What the heck, there should not even be a percentage!
Get a grip...pulleaessse!"

0% gun deaths?
Come on!

Murder has been with us since Cain and Abel.
Suicide almost as long.
And guns for hundreds of years.
They're inevitably going to link up *sometimes*.
"Get a grip", yourself.

Actually, yes, I think people should have some 'official' approval.

Depression can pass. I've known people who have passed through suicidal episodes and recovered.
So while I'd support someone with a debilitating condition ending their live having undergone proper counselling and so forth, I'd hardly advocate any normalisation of suicide as a solution to somebody's problems.
Murder may have been with us since Cain and Abel, but so has human compassion, something I'm seeing awfully little example of in your posts. No percentage of gun death should be seen as acceptable - I can understand that realistically there may always be gun death, but to just blithely accept that is truly sad.

And 1.4 per cent is huge. It's a significant blip, and I reiterate my earlier point that statistics are all about context.
You say 1.4 per cent is insignificant - yeah, well all things are relative. How's that compare to other countries which don't have such a lax attitude toward guns?

Homicide's harder without guns. People still try to say that more guns will solve the problem, but it's through more homicide. Call me old fashioned, but I tend to prefer death as a last resort.

If some hood pulls a knife on me, I mould prefer to see death as a first resort. Their death.

Goodbye, Lady Liberty.
Let's all give a hearty welcome to Lady Authority.
Official approval required for *all* decisions!

No wait, even better: all decisions already made for you.
Obey, puny slave!

If the USA is the *worst* nation in the world for gun deaths, and they can only come up with 1.4%, then there's really no argument for excessive gun control laws.

Methinks your perception of American gun deaths is more informed by "CSI Miami" than the real world.
*Everybody* gets shot on TV!

Gun laws are only followed by the law-abiding anyway.
Criminals, by definition, *don't* obey the law!

The criminals *already* have guns, and will still have them, no matter what laws you make.
Who are you "protecting"?

Actually Shockadelic, who are 'you' protecting?

All of your commentary reeks of acceptance of gun death.
You keep saying 1.4 per cent is negligible and it can safely be ignored.

Your attitude can only result in either the situation remaining static, or more likely, getting worse. Nowhere is there any hint of how gun deaths could be reduced.

Screw that. Life's more valuable than your desire to own a gun.

The day we sit back and say a certain amount of death is fine, we've lost a far more important battle.

As far as the rest of your rhetoric goes, it's just that. When you're resorting to diatribes like CSI Miami (I don't really watch much TV) you're on a losing battle.

As for the "oh, my government's ruling me! How unfair! Let me be free!" you're quite welcome to go to say, Colombia.
I hear the gun laws are much more lax there.

And in relation to your 'lets make suicide easy' posts, you're a dangerous idiot. Depression is a mental condition that can often be treated.

1.4% gun deaths is not wonderful, hip hip hooray. I never said that.
But it's a reasonable, realistic level.

If just 1.4% of Americans died next year from some new disease and it remained at this level for years, would this be cause for alarm and panic?

If 1.4% of Americans woke up blind tomorrow, this would be unfortunate, but it wouldn't be the end of the world.

If 1.4% of American employees lost their jobs this year, would the whole economy grind to a halt?

And don't lecture to me about depression, Sonny.
I've been down that road, and the thing that got me out of it was my sense of humour.

If I took everything ultra-seriously, and became a pedantic worrywart like you, then I'd still be depressed or I'd have killed myself by now.

You reap what you sow.

What do you think you're reaping with your negative, pessimistic, restrictive approach?

Your sentiments lead to the perception of "Man As Monster", a despicable, horrid creature that can't be trusted to make their own decisions, a devil who can't be believed or loved.

You are helping *create* the very thing you claim to not want: depressed suicidal people, who can't stand themselves because they'll never live up to your impossible angelic standards.

I reap what I sow too.

Light-heartedness, trust in myself and my judgment, liberal principles, acceptance of human nature, realism, not expecting or even wanting people or their world to be perfect.

Who's approach do you think will lead to more depression and suicide?

"Gloom and Doom" is not going to produce "Sunshine and Lollipops", is it?

I suspect you're actually a sadomasochist who unconsciously gets off on tragedy, pain and suffering, then feels guilty about it, and rails at the decadence of your enemies.

Without all that pain and suffering, you'd be lost.
Your life would lose all meaning and you'd become one of those poor depressed souls you pretend to care about.

You reap what you sow: Gloom and Doom. Depression. Suicide.

Shockadelic - I'm the one who's saying we ought to try and improve the gun death situation, rather than just say 'oh well, 1.4 per cent ain't bad.'

As far as the rest goes, I'm actually a hell of an optimist. I just think introducing more guns into Australian society, when it's quite clear that American gun deaths are higher than ours, is stupidity, plain and simple, that would get people killed.
I'd be remiss if I didn't speak out against those who seem to think this is a good idea.

Plus, I'm not the guy who is insinuating that it should be easy for people to commit suicide. It'd an entirely different kettle of fish to voluntary euthanasia, and your earlier posts show a dangerous naivete in regard to the matter.

Voluntary euthanasia *is* suicide!
You are choosing to die.

Does it occur to you that some people are killing themselves with guns because voluntary euthanasia is *illegal* in most places?

Guns are just a sure-fire substitute for your preferred method.

You want to take guns away from people who *can't* get legal euthanasia!
What is it you want?

Do people have the right to die or not?
Legal "approval" may be impossible!

Shockadelic - the problem with your laissez-faire solution, is that plenty of people with a treatable mental illness would opt to kill themselves.

In fact, most healthy people who want to die, would probably fall into this category. As for the unhealthy ones, they're the ones who should be granted euthanasia, and would be in the hospital system and able to be properly assessed.
As far as them not being eligible, I'd support revising this system - given that we don't currently have a legal euthanasia option, you can't claim one way or another what kind of restrictions this hypothetical system would have - thus your argument is nixed, unless you're referring to the mentally ill/depressed people I refer to originally.
I can understand people with a debilitating health condition wanting to die - as for other people, I'd suggest we try and help them rather than just giving them access to a gun.

As far as me being all doom and gloom, that ain't the case. Refer to these threads if you don't believe me:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5883#81348

I'm damn happy with the Australia we have - I just don't see why people would want to mess that up - in fact, I tend to think the doom and gloom brigade are the ones telling us we need guns to solve the allegedly devastating situation we have.

What is it exactly you want to achieve by introducing more guns/gun rights into Australia?

"And when did your fear of guns first appear?" asks Dr Freud.

"I think I was about 9 or 10." replies TurnRightThenLeft.
"I'd played with toy guns as a child, but it suddenly seemed wrong and yucky."

"I see." says Dr Freud, doodling ejaculating guns in his notepad.

"And when did you learn to make a cogent argument?" asked the doctor.

"I didn't" replied shockadelic, already confused as to what he was actually discussing. The doctor took pity on him and gave him some medication to calm him down.

The thing about your posts shockadelic, be they suicide, guns or mental illness, is that none of them could possibly lead to an improvement in the situation.
You speak of how unimportant a small number of gun deaths are, you speak of the inevitability of suicide and the necessity of having easy access to firearms, yet I fail to see how any of these would result in reduced death or increased happiness.
Then you resort to hypothesising, insults and irrelevant musings. Nice work there chief.

The ole 'fear of firearms' card is played frequently by gun advocates... actually, a fear of stupidity is more apt, because that's what adopting a system more in line with the US equates to.

You ain't got squat to back your case. I'm glad Australia hasn't bought into that crap.

"And when did you learn to make a cogent argument?" asked the doctor.

"I learnt everything I know from TurnRightThenLeftThenInsideOut" replied Shockadelic.

"The thing about your posts is that none of them could possibly lead to an improvement in the situation.
I fail to see how any of these would result in reduced death or increased happiness."

What is with your obsession with "improving" things?

"The world isn't perfect?!
I want my mummy!"

This incessant dissatifaction with impure reality is *precisely* why people get depressed and suicidal, join cults, bomb embassies and do all sorts of other madness!
They think they can "improve" things!

Only people who believe in the nonsense of perfectability preach "improvement".

I haven't "bought into that crap" myself.

A perfect world is a static dictatorship.
A perfect person is a robotic slave.

That's why Adam and Eve ate the fruit.
To get the hell out of PerfectLand!

Nope, the world ain't perfect.

Though I'd say it's the people who give up on ever doing anything that might change things, who are the depressed ones.
Lets say, hypothetically, the world is made up of optimists and pessimists. One finds changes as generally a good thing, the other one finds change as a bad thing.
See if you can spot who the optimist is?

Oh, and like I said earlier, I'm quite happy with how Australia is already.

Shockadelic: Only people who believe in the nonsense of perfectability preach "improvement".

No, actually anyone can see a stupid situation and want to improve it.

It's really quite easy - basically you just go: "hey, wait a minute, there's more gun deaths over there."
"Seems kinda dumb to opt for that. Heck, I think I'll stick with what we have now."
Thus, by avoiding a stupid situation, you've improved things. Technically, nothing's changed, but it beats the alternative.

Whaddya know? I didn't even need to go to my 'mummy' for that one. Nor did I need to strive for some unattainable goal of perfection.
Oh, by the way, another nice bit of irrelevant hypothetical twaddle there. Thumbs up for that one.

So, by the logic of your last post - nobody should do anything, ever, that might improve things.
Uh... huh. By the same token, you may as well not make constructive arguments on OLO - gasp! It might improve things!

Bummer. Here I thought that was the point of constructive debate.

Well... in any case, if there's two arguments, and one improves things and one doesn't, I think I'll go for the former.

There's no obsession here - just a desire to avoid stupidity, though to do that, I should probably stop replying to your posts.
They've drifted pretty far from anything resembling a rational argument as it stands.

You've gone from "who cares about a few gun deaths" to "people who try and improve things are depressed."

In which case, lets not try your "improvement" in easing gun laws huh?

"I should probably stop replying to your posts."

And yet you still do.
Because like all namby pamby do-gooder know-it-all closet totalitarians, you can't tolerate anybody having an "unacceptable" opinion.

(But I bet you preach tolerance and diversity, day in day out.
Just not when it comes to guns.)

"Lets say the world is made up of optimists and pessimists. One finds changes as generally a good thing, the other one finds change as a bad thing. See if you can spot who the optimist is?"

Ah, cleverly changing the defined quarrel from "improvement" to "change".
Completely different meanings.

"Change" is inevitabre.
I'm sorry, it's what?
"Inevit, inevitabre."
One more time.
"Inevitabre! Things are inevitabrey going to change!"

"Change" is occurring constantly, but those changes can be beneficial, detrimental or neutral;
within our control, or beyond our control.

As a realist, I accept change is inevitable.
Also because I'm a realist, I'm sceptical of "improvement".

By your argument, the allegedly detrimental "change" of looser gun laws would be welcomed by optimists like yourself, because optimists love change!
You would also love the "change" of global warming or alien invasion.

"Nor did I need to strive for some unattainable goal of perfection.
Oh, by the way, another nice bit of irrelevant hypothetical twaddle there."

Irrelevant hypothetical twaddle?

Tell me, what is the *point* of "improvement", if not to eventually improve everything to the point where improvement is no longer required: perfection.

In this perfect world, "imperfect" deviation couldn't be allowed.
That would corrupt the perfection, so you'd get a static dictatorship.

"By the same token, you may as well not make constructive arguments on OLO - gasp! It might improve things!"

Well, it might let people know that there are *other* perspectives besides the namby pamby, do-gooder, know-it-all, closet totalitarian one.
If nobody ever spoke up for the pro-imperfectionists, people would presume we don't exist!

We had looser gun laws before, but no epidemic of gun violence.
What was the *justification* of the gun buyback, and the associated restrictions?
Some lone nutjob in Tasmania, not a general nationwide epidemic.