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 ?