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.