"Attempted attack in Australia" Topic

"Apache – the fact that oyu expect your criminals to carry guns points to the second part of my sentence."

- First, neither of the criminals were armed with guns, one did show a knife. My grandmother weighs about 120 pounds. Many (most) men (and most criminals are men) would not need a gun to rob her.

The issue with armed citizens is far larger than the potentiality to face down the criminal element. You don't have to be "weapon happy" to see the necessity of keeping those in gov't always on their toes. Without an armed populace, the gov't morphs into disdain and then tyranny, separated from the people by elitism.

As for going about personally armed, there are different reasons for choosing to do so. I actually dislike guns. But they are the "sword" of the world since their invention and virtual perfection. Someone who needs one will wish s/he had one at the time and place. And I don't want that to happen to me. I want the option to fight back. Knowing that I carry that option changes my way of thinking about going about in the world day after day. To be de facto at the mercy of the next random assault is not an option I choose……………..

Hence I don't feel terrified by not owning a firearm.

Again, not a matter of "feeling terrified."

Hell, if you saw me in the street, you'd probably give ME a wide berth because I'm 6 feet tall, have a 17.5" neck, and wear a size-50 suitcoat. I also walk around and look/nod at people, like the apex predators do. The punks in Shinjuku certainly left me alone, and several groups of them went to the other side of the street rather than have me walk by.

Nevermind the fact that I have a broken back and one solid hit to my kidneys could paralyze me from the hips down for life, I am big and look/move/act rather intimidating to most people. But everyone who grew up in my city walks down the street, looking and nodding at people they pass.

I take responsibility for my own safety, because I legally cannot depend on the police to do it for me. There are 10 years of US Supreme Court decisions that say, "even if you have a restraining order against someone, the police have NO duty to protect you from that person." (specific case citation: Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, 545 US 748 (2005)) There's another 35 years of case law that says that the police have no duty to protect you from a general threat (Warren v District of Columbia, 444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981). I am not exaggerating or distorting, go look up the cases for yourself.

That said, I don't carry in the city of half a million I live in. Don't feel the need, usually. Unless some has a vicious dog that won't stop advancing when called. However, I do carry when I'm out in the country, and may have to deal with snakes or other critters. Like potentially-rabid wolverines, coyotes, badgers, wolves, feral hogs, feral dogs, etc.

The issue with armed citizens is far larger than the potentiality to face down the criminal element. You don't have to be "weapon happy" to see the necessity of keeping those in gov't always on their toes. Without an armed populace, the gov't morphs into disdain and then tyranny, separated from the people by elitism.

I'm inclined just to write you're wrong, so, so wrong but I can concede your experiences may be different.

I live in a democracy. The government is, essentially, me. If the people I choose to lead us, stray, then I vote them out.

The very concept of living in a society where everyone is armed to the teeth is anathema. If I lived in such, I'd immigrate.

I certainly don't get upset by the views of some Americans on this thread (they're entitled to them!) but I do wish they'd stop advocating Australia go down their mistaken path.

Lion – so you live in a failed sttae. Fair enough.

It's 25 years since I last visited Australia, I didn't encounter any gun crime (but I was hanging around with 3 RAR) but I remember it was the subject of a few discussions. Having gone from US style gun control, then having a few mass shootings, to British style, it is apparently much safer. The sheer amount of weaponry in the States may preclude that sort of change though. If the average citizen of the USA thinks he should be allowed to own guns, that's no business of any other country.

@Stu: Glad to know that you consider one of the best places to live in the US a "failed state". Not my pride in my birthplace, Boise Idaho is regularly in the top 25 best places to live in the US. It's also considered the friendliest city in the US.

Guess you consider Canada a failed state, too, because Canada has the same wild animal "problems" that Idaho does.

I suppose you live in a place without potentially rabid and wild animals, no packs of feral dogs running around. And no poisonous snakes. Or bears, and I know you don't have to deal with mountain lions. There are a lot of animals where I live that will happily stomp your ass flat. Moose, for example. I was charged by a momma moose when her idiot/curious youngster kept wandering closer to me. 2000lbs of unhappy herbivore will kill you just as dead as 35lbs of rabid dog.

Idaho goes very quickly from "city" to "ground too desolate and dry to farm". I can drive 30 minutes south of town and be in the middle of nowhere. I still have cellphone reception as long as I stay north of the power lines (high-tension lines tend to mess up cell reception), but if something goes wrong out there you will need an air ambulance to save your butt. Happened last Memorial Day, some poor dude had a firearms-related mishap and got hauled out by air ambulance because it would have taken a ground ambulance nearly an hour to get to him.

If the average citizen of the USA thinks he should be allowed to own guns, that's no business of any other country.

I would agree. I don't agree with Stu's "failed state" attack.

The sheer amount of weaponry in the States may preclude that sort of change though.

Again, a sensible comment. It would be disingenuous to write that all America's problems would disappear if only private gun ownership was controlled.
I think it may be a symptom rather than the root cause. I can really only speak of two countries & I'll confine myself to Australia (though both it & Scotland are not dissimilar). As you note, thanks to strict gun control, there is a laudably low level of violence here. Homicide is within acceptable limits, no mass shootings at schools, suicides lower than you'd expect, no Wacos etc.
The bigger picture must be taken into account, however. In spite of being a very multi-cultural society, there is quite a degree of social cohesiveness. For instance the vast majority of Moslem Australians are good citizens & provide the intell that helps the police stop Terrorist outrages like the one mentioned in the OP.
Thanks to a reasonably fair program of social security, the poor, the old & unemployed are cared for. Throw in a mostly comprehensive national health system to help stop people falling through the cracks. A minimum wage you can live on (just!), a positive outlook, progressive action on social justice issues: all present. Finally, education is quite strong here. That's the package that makes private gun ownership unnecessary.
I can't let people suppose OZ is some sort of Utopia though. Indigenous people & their problems still need to be addressed & there is still a degree of poverty. I would hope the legalisation of Gay marriage will occur but it's at least 2 years away. However, the answer lies here. A healthy society does not need guns to assuage its fears.

I don't think anyone is saying that any other nation should advocate changes to be more like the USA and our gun control laws etc. Some say the USA is "exceptional" … IMO, exceptionally different than many other nations when it comes to the 2 Amendment. Every nation should do what it's elected officials enact based on their electorate's wishes. I think that is called democracy ?

The sheer amount of weaponry in the States may preclude that sort of change though. If the average citizen of the USA thinks he should be allowed to own guns, that's no business of any other country.

Amen !

A healthy society does not need guns to assuage its fears

so you live in a failed sttae. Fair enough.

No you live in a state of continuing biased misunderstanding, etc., based on some anti-US rhetoric … again …
I'll say again, to compare the USA to a "failed state" with all the locations in Africa, the Mid East and A'stan. That can't even take care of themselves, etc.. Again makes me want to ask, who really has serious issues ?

Be careful one doesn't get impaled by one of the unicorn's horn that exist in some version of reality. One many not see it coming while wearing rose colored glasses.

200 years ago, + or -, when the Right to Bear Arms was the norm, [and still is]. Many/some American needed to protect his[or hers] family, stock, homestead, etc., from predators of all kinds. Bears, cougars, indigenous locals, other Americans, etc. And even from the French then the British and their Hessian mercenary allies. At different times …

Plus many Americans on the frontier needed to hunt to eat/feed his family. [Which many still do today in some of the more rural areas of the US, etc.]
Today some Americans still need to have fire arms available, not just for hunting or protecting their livestock from wolves, kyotes, etc. But to possibly protect themselves and their family, etc. from criminals, gang bangers/drug dealers, etc., and yes today …. even terrorists, both foreign and domestic.

Now that is the way it is in the USA. I'm or others here are not saying any other nations should do as the US does. In any way, shape or form. And because the US has the 2d Amendment does not mean it's a failed state. As again, places like in Africa, the Mid East, A'stan, etc., …

When is the last time any nation, failed state, etc., ever provided any real material aid of any sort to the USA ? While the USA wastes billions on a plethora of failed, fail, weak corrupt, etc., nations worldwide. So I think some should redefine what a failed state is, like I said, A'stan is a good example.

Lion – I totally understand the requirement for hunting rifles. I do not understand the requirement for handguns, or any firearm outside the home.

If you feel you need either, unless you are a sports shooter, your society has problems.

If you're happy with daily mass shootings, that's up to you. But I repeat, I think our way is better.

for a start our children have a better chanc eof making it to adulthood.

When is the last time any nation, failed state, etc., ever provided any real material aid of any sort to the USA ?

1) Mexico, after Katrina.

2) What do you call the vast amount of intelligence and material help given post 9/11?

I'm talking real material support … like in the range of the millions/billion in money that the US gives many other nations. Including Russia link What did Mexico do/give the US after Katrina, really ? link And many others did or pledged to give the US aid. link Albeit no matter what, it was a good gesture … and welcomed. But in the long run, it was like a US ROI.

I'm not talking about things like intel. Which is gladly accepted regardless. Just like all the intel and assistance given others nations by the US as well.

I do not understand the requirement for handguns, or any firearm outside the home.

If you feel you need either, unless you are a sports shooter, your society has problems.

If you're happy with daily mass shootings, that's up to you. But I repeat, I think our way is better.

for a start our children have a better chanc eof making it to adulthood.

You are reading into media hype and your narrative about the US being Mad Max Thunderdome. Mass shootings for one are few. And all US children have a better chance of making it to adulthood mostly likely than many other locations in the world.
You again are blinded by your skewed narrative about the USA … again …

Something some just refuse to get … Generally the best way to stop someone using a gun to kill other members of society. Is someone else with a gun.

And regardless of all the posts and rhetoric here. We have gone waaaay OT …

Chris should be released from the Doghouse

Legion – supporting the US in their wars costs us billions and a lot of blood as well. And it's not just the British who have donated in what have occaisonally been foolish causes.

As it happens, after Katrina the US govenrment declined foreign aid IIRC saying they could cope… I think quite a bit was offered.

Mass shootings – as defined by three or more victims – happen daily in the USA.

US children have a worse chance of making it to adulthood than any nation in the EU I think – certainly Western Europe.

Since Dunblane in 1996, there have been no schoolchildrne shot dead at school in the UK. In the USA (five times the population) there have been 270.

In 2011 – the latest year I can find comparable figures, guns wer eused in 11,101 murders. In the UK … 17.

Chicago, a city less than half the size of London, has far more murders than the UK as a whole…

Yep, guns really, really seme to be working for you.

But I don't see Americans changing their minds because, well frankly because you don't actually value each other sufficiently.

But I don't see Americans changing their minds

Again, I think you're being harsh, Stu. I think a sizeable majority of Americans would like to see gun control from what I read. For instance, ownership of multiple weapons should be curtailed. It would be a start.

Throw in exclusion of gun ownership for those suffering from any sort of mental instability (even if it means ex-servicemen) & you'd be making progress.

These sort of reforms could be easily enacted except for a powerful & vocal minority.

Bamgorstu:

All nations make sacrifices and take risks when setting up how their states will run. The U.K. may be more peaceful but for the majority of its citizens it is far less free than the USA. You have an unprecedented surveillance state, a snooper's charter which would make the East German Stasi jealous, a GCHQ which breaks the law routinely only to have the accessory government retroactively make legal what was criminal. You have secret trials held in camera like the Star Chamber of days gone by. Magna Carta unravels after 800 years and you are as oblivious as frogs in a slowly warming pot coming to boil.

The price that the Americans were willing to pay 240 years ago to let that be your system but not theirs was an armed populace capable of toppling tyrants should they emerge. They understood that the rules of power are rude and brutal, not polite and clean. The price of that freedom in 1783 seemed acceptable to the framers of the constitution. So did that price seem reasonable to the drafters of the Second Amendment eight years later. The cost may have gone up since then but the decision to keep or change that amendment lies only with the free people of the USA and not the huddled, frightened, disengaged, urban serfs of Europe who fool themselves into thinking that civility and decorum are the same as acquiescence to arbitrary state power. What Europeans should consider is firm, respectful and perpetual defiance to creeping authoritarianism not well-mannered de facto assent.

Freedom has a cost and the bloody streets of the USA are the price that this republic is so far willing to pay in order to maintain its best bulwark against institutional tyranny by the state or deep state. It would be nicer if fewer died or if the enemies of liberty perished instead of the poor or the marginalised, but that is how it is until Americans (and not Welshmen or Canadians) make the decision to do so.

Cheers and happy New Year.
Rod Robertson.

The purpose of a pistol is to have something short and handy to use when you generally need one or both hands for something else, Stu. There's a reason why most people in the Old West carried a pistol and a rifle (plus often a shotgun and sometimes a buffalo rifle). Can't always use the long gun, particularly when you're in thick brush.

I'm not going to shoot a snake that's more than about 6 feet away from me. I will give "Mister No-Shoulders" a wide berth, live and let live (mostly because snakes eat gophers and other things that dig huge holes in the pastures and break legs). Bears, wolves, coyotes, etc, get the same consideration. They will generally leave humans alone (though wolves and mountain lions like to watch humans from a distance).

Feral dogs or hogs will not ignore humans. Rabid animals will not ignore humans. They will actively attack humans. Those are the primary threats when you're stomping around in the woods or sagebrush where I live.

Australia has much the same problem with feral animals, plus all the other aggressive wildlife that lives there. How often do you hear about people being attacked by wildlife in Australia? A lot more often than you do in the US or Canada.

How often do you hear about people being attacked by wildlife in Australia?

You're joking, right? I'd suggest you need to get hard facts because this is a nonsense. Don't confuse internet & media jokes for reality. Drop bears aren't real.

link

I'm really gobsmacked an educated person would write this.

Holy smokes, I find myself largely agreeing with Rod again.

For what it's worth, I do not carry every day, but I almost always carry a pistol when in the woods as Missouri has significant numbers of snakes and feral hogs. I do keep a cased shotgun and some shells behind the seat of my truck just in case. The Ozarks are quite safe- to the best of my knowledge, my county has had one homicide in the past three years- but are sadly not immune from those who would wish to do good people harm.

supporting the US in their wars costs us billions and a lot of blood as well. And it's not just the British who have donated in what have occasionally been foolish causes.

And yet you legally elected officials send your forces along anyway.

As it happens, after Katrina the US government declined foreign aid IIRC saying they could cope… I think quite a bit was offered.

1) The US didn't need the help.
2) Some "help" would come from some less than "savory" sources.
3) Foreign troops/civilians would generally be more trouble than they would be worth. In many cases.
4) The US did not want some to think we owe them. Beyond over what we already give many of them.

Mass shootings – as defined by three or more victims – happen daily in the USA.

that three of more figure daily seems a bit high. But based on your perception the USA is Mad Max Thunderdome.

US children have a worse chance of making it to adulthood than any nation in the EU I think – certainly Western Europe.

You must be reading the media hype. Who came up with that "fact" ? The UN ? I've never seen or heard anything like this. And coming from you I'm very suspect of the source.

Yep, guns really, really seme to be working for you.

Works for me and all my friends. We don't want to be victims or statistics.

But I don't see Americans changing their minds because, well frankly because you don't actually value each other sufficiently.

We value each other just fine. Until some tries to kill you or your family, etc. Their value becomes 0 or the cost of a bullet.

I think a sizeable majority of Americans would like to see gun control from what I read.

From living in the USA most of my life I don't see this sizable majority you speak of. Oh wait … you read about them … Got it … The real vast majority don't really care about it.

ownership of multiple weapons should be curtailed. It would be a start.

I've got 3 rifles and 2 pistols. And my LEO friends know it. Who is going to pass such a law ? Oh … I know … the vast majority of which you speak.

Throw in exclusion of gun ownership for those suffering from any sort of mental instability (even if it means ex-servicemen) & you'd be making progress.

They can take my guns when they pry them from my cold dead hands. Saw that on a bumper sticker … I like it.
And who is going to "divine" the mental stability of gun buyer/owners ? Some board of intellectual academics chosen by who ?

These sort of reforms could be easily enacted except for a powerful & vocal minority.

Again who would pass such a reform ? And again, you speak of a majority that wants this to happen ? Where ? Again most don't give a rat's bum … I know I live here …

Ralph, again you think I'm talking about you. The ex-serviceman with mental health issues who should have had no access to firearms would be the Dallas shooter.

I know I live here

My pardon. I'm only going on published data conducted by reputable organisations……

link

….sorry but I can't, as much as I'd like to, back your opinion here. Reading (& researching) is generally an accepted way to back an opinion. Not so much unsubstantiated opinions based on "personal experience".

Who is going to pass such a law

I'm sure I don't know. When the majority finally get sick of the avalanche of useless killings??

My God, this is thread drift. Bangorstu, how dare you, yet again you decide British foreign policy on your hippy dippy happy clappy ideas.
By Stu, can't quote.

supporting the US in their wars costs us billions and a lot of bl
ood as well. And it's not just the British who have donated in what have occaisonally been foolish causes.

You've obviously been asleep for the last 27 years, they're our wars as well. And as for blood, when you've seen your mates dying and have had to put others on the plane home you can have your opinion. Til then, can it.

Ochoin: "I think a sizeable majority of Americans would like to see gun control from what I read."

- Personnaly, I'd rather see strict enforcement of existing gun laws as opposed to adding more regulations and laws that will be poorly enforced, and have NO effect on criminal use of firearms.

- One of the reason that their is huge distrust of "common sense gun control" is because it does not work and their has been a continual infringement on rights with NO positive effect. There is always calls for more gun control, which often infringes on honest citizens rights, to address issues that are really not gun issues, but crime and social issues.

- The areas in the US with the strictest gun control laws often have the worst gun crime. In Detroit, with very strict gun laws criminals are unlikely to encounter a armed citizen. In Nashville, with very liberal (in the proper sense of the word) gun laws, criminals are far more likely to encounter armed citizens. There are huge difference in "gun crime" between the two cities, Detroit has far more murders committed by criminals armed with guns.

- In California, common sense gun laws keep getting passed. They have no effect on crime. So a few years later their is more calls for common sense gun laws, which have reached the point of ridiculousness. Many other wise law abiding citizens are simply ignoring the laws, as they are unconstitiutional. As a result, their are likely 1 or 2 million California citizens who are simply not complying with the laws. The state is not actively pursuing them, since they don't think the recent set of laws will be upheld by the Supreme Court.

- You do understand that this is a very politized issue inside the US and that the media is likely as accurate about this as they were about who would win the 2016 electrion. I'm certain that politicians who are pro gun control routinely loss The way you ask questions can hugely swing the responses, when organizations are trying to get specific results to support their agenda they can.

"For instance, ownership of multiple weapons should be curtailed. It would be a start."
- I'm curious why you think multiple weapons are more dangerous? I've got several firearms, I'm also very experienced with firearms. I'm not sure why my multiple weapons are more dangerous then one firearm, owned by someone who is likely going to be less familiar with firearms then I?

Throw in exclusion of gun ownership for those suffering from any sort of mental instability (even if it means ex-servicemen) & you'd be making progress.

- While I agree that violent felons and people with a history of violence associated with mental illness should have their right to own firearms restricted. That is current law in (I believe) most states? The challenge is that mental health professionals don't communicate effectively with law enforcement.

@ Apache
Thank you for your thoughtful reply: it's useful to speak to someone who will make their point calmly & logically & I am not closed to other views. Indeed, your response is thought-provoking.

Your information about the plethora of gun control laws that are more or less not prosecuted is interesting. I think I've made clear that I think America's problems need solving by Americans. However, it seems that simple, enforceable AND enforced laws need to be enacted. You can always ramp them up when you've reached success at a relatively basic level.

I do understand it's all about politics. I've seen tables that split gun-ownership between Republican & Democrat voters. Kowtowing to your electorate is not unknown elsewhere! I acknowledge banning would be futile but a consensus on even very basic rules for gun ownership would be a start.

Re; multiple guns. I've read the real growth in gun-ownership isn't with people buying their first but in amongst the 8% or so of owners who have 8-10 guns already. Mass shootings seem to be always carried out by someone carrying several firearms. Perhaps simplistic, but it seems as if limiting the number of guns could be one of those "baby steps" that might have a positive effect.

I'm embarrassed to write this as I'm sure everyone gets the point that in a society where gun ownership is restricted, not only "normal" citizens find it hard to access firearms but so too do criminals & terrorists. In other words (& again, sorry for stating the bleeding obvious) if you haven't got easily acquired guns, you probably don't need them.

When I was backpacking round Europe in the '80s, we used to amuse ourselves on the long train trips by seeing what we could get the Americans to believe about Australia. As it turns out they would believe pretty much anything (like the existence of dropbears, the dozens of people taken each day by sharks and crocs, etc). Clearly, the myths are still in circulation.

So many ironies, a girl doesn't know where to start. Lots of stuff to respond to so, as Jack the Ripper said, let's take this a bit at a time.

Let's begin with getting banned for making a quip about adult toys. This is inappropriate, apparently, on a board dealing with adult toys. Sex toys, are inadequate, that is. Firearms? No, that's srs bzns and spot on topic.

And I guess one of the reasons my comment was inappropriate was because this is supposedly a "family friendly" site. Apparently, we need to keep the kiddies' minds pure, even though at 35, I am probably the youngest person posting here. And just mentioning sex is apparently family unfriendly: implying that an entire religion of people are to blame for terrorism is, apparently, again, spot on topic and very family friendly.

But here's the real chuckle: my comment is judged inappropriate, so it is quoted in its entirety on the Dawghaus page, where Frothers got to screenshot it and save it for posterity. :D

No you are not the youngest.

Im an Australian Ex-servicemen, i believe our gun laws are pathetically excessive.
I think being able to protect yourself and your loved ones is a basic human right.

How often do you hear about people being attacked by wildlife in Australia?

You're joking, right? I'd suggest you need to get hard facts because this is a nonsense. Don't confuse internet & media jokes for reality. Drop bears aren't real.

Who the mentioned drop bears?!?

I was talking about snakes, dingoes, crocs, and sharks. You know, animals that actually exist and are known to attack humans?

To say nothing of the foxes that will happily kill every lamb in the paddock without eating a bite of any lamb…

Foxweasel – for the record, I supported both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan… although in retrospect Iraq was a huge mistake.

I'm just asking for a little appreciation from those we supported is all.

And indeed on behalf of the Danes, French, Germans etc who also spent blood and treasure in Afghanistan who the Americans forget all too easily… which is why I get riled when the likes of Legion wonder what help the USA ever gets…

speaking of things which I do actually have some knowledge of… Australian wildlife is, on average, far more dangerous than American wildlife.

Grizzlies are terrifying, but difficult to actually find. Wolves are naturally shy.

And Americans don't have deadly spiders which occur in suburbia.

Though for them a shoe, rather than a firearms will possibly suffice.

Me? I'd probably just burn the hosue down just to be sure.

@ Lion. You're just making it worse. Read the link. Do some reading. Find out something before you post.
Dingos for example. We get a pack travelling through several times a year. They eat cats. Think coyote not ravening wolf.
And as they're part of the ecology; creating a balance, I would sooner shoot heroin than a dingo.

BTW do you use your 9mm to kill sharks? Seems….inefficient?

Australian wildlife is, on average, far more dangerous than American wildlife.

Stu, this is a pretty ill-informed comment too. Did you find the wildlife in OZ to be so dangerous on your last visit? Again, read that link. You people watch too many movies & gullible ain't in it!

Here's the link again so you can become informed:

link

(eg no spider bite deaths, 1 person p.a. from crocs etc. However, 300 a year drown. I may have to "shoot some waves"***

**** "shoot some waves": surfing pun.)

Dear Legion 4,

(I hope that "dear" doesn't get me dawghaused again! Let me make it clear that I am just using it as a conventional written greeting: no need to feel belittled by it, OK? ;) )

Legion, you are aware that the only link I posted above about who murders women and why comes directly from the FBI, right? If you truly think we live on different planets when I say "The person most likely to kill you, if you are a woman, is a male who is an intimate partner, ex-intimate partner, family member, or other close associate", then you need to think about what your planet is named because those are straight up facts, my friend (I can't call you "hun" because The Editor would probably either think it an ethnic slur or an insult). I live in the U.S., on planet Earth, and that's what the highest law enforcement agency in the land tells us.

So unless you have some really good explanation as to why the FBI (and pretty much every law enforcement agency on planet Earth) would lie about this, then I think I am really safe in saying that you need to change your thinking about who is the number one threat to American women when it comes to murder and mayhem. It's not Muslim terrorists or "urban thugs": it's the guy you live with.

I am sorry to be the bringer of bad tidings, if you weren't aware of this, but pretty much every woman with an IQ higher than a donut learns this stuff early on in life. Doesn't mean we still don't end up loving you guys, or at least some of you, so don't get upset and think this is some sort of "man-hating" spree. All I am saying is that if you are truly afraid of Muslims and immigrants because of things like the Australian incident above, women have a hell of a lot more reason, statistically speaking, to be afraid of men. All men. Because, like, how can we know which of you are the good guys and which are the bad guys? Because you tell us?

And yet here you are, finding that viewpoint strange. Now you know exactly how I feel when I hear people bad mouthing immigrants and Muslims as a threat. You know what the difference is, though? The statistics are actually well on my side.

Now let's talk condescending and patronizing. Legion, every time someone brings up anything military, you tell us your service three decades ago makes you an expert on the topic. Well, I have been living as a woman in Red America for easily as long as you were a soldier, and my experiece is very recent, to boot. So unless you're one of those guys who doesn't think what is good for the goose is good for the gander, you might want to ask yourself why your practical experience as a soldier trumps everyone's opinion, but my practical experience as a woman means nothing at all. Especially when I back up my experience with FBI data.

Then there's you lecturing me about LEOs and soldiers and how they are experts on evil. Legion 4, has it ever occurred to you that there might be the slightest possibility that I have law enforcement or military experience myself? Not all folks wear their service on their chest, as if it were the most important thing they've done in their life. Say what you want, but realize you look pretty silly when you do that sort of thing and then call others "condescending".

You claim people want to kill you, L4, so they are evil? Who, in fact, wants to kill you, personally? If you are talking about generic "terrorists" or something like that, fine. But then surely I am allowed to consider as "evil" people who would kill me or strip me of my rights just for being a woman and "acting up"?

But applause to you, Legion 4, for coming up with an actual definition of evil, which neither Mr. Jackson (who began all this by bringing the term up in the first place) or anyone else has done so far. Your definition is basically "my people, right or wrong". While I appreciate the sentiment, let me respectfully point out that it is a definition of good and evil that is in no ways different from that of the "urban thugs and criminals" so many people seem to be buying guns to protect themselves from. Al Capone himself would be quite happy with that definition.

If Mr. Jackson, however, would like to give us a definition of "evil" that somehow is logically able to take in Castro's torturers while ignoring Argentina's, as I said above, I am all ears.

Next up, Great War Ace (sorry this is a lot at once, but the Dawghaus is full of Bibles and I was using the margins as writing paper )

Dear Great War Ace,

(Again, please don't think this belittling: it's just a common written salutation.)

You say "The issue with armed citizens is far larger than the potentiality to face down the criminal element". What "criminal element" is that, looking at it from a woman's point of view, when the guy most likely to shoot her lives or works with her under her own roof?

I mean, this is all stirring, chest-hair raising rhetoric and all, but the facts speak for themselves: as a woman, I am much more likely to be blown away by the man who sits down to lunch or dinner with me than some "random criminal element".

And this is where all this rhetoric is laid bare: it's not the evil, ingrained criminal class that's killing women: it's mostly Joe Blow Armed Citizen. And when he does it, his neighbors generally say "No one would ever have guessed that he'd be the type of man to do that".

Also, our rights have been horrendously eroded over the last forty years. The U.S. is now the world's largest police state (although the guards are generally smiley and tell you to have a nice day). Civil liberties of all sorts have been weakened and now it looks like we're finally getting a one party state, elected against the wishes of the majority. Given all this -- and the lack of almost zero response from America's gun owners – I really don't see your 9mm handgun as a bulwark of freedom. Although, again, the rhetoric is very stirring.

Before anyone misreads my position here, let me make it perfectly clear: I have not called for a ban on guns. All I have said is that I prefer not to carry one. Period. I think I have given very good reasons why, which no one has taken the time or effort to even address (except to imply that I am a flighty little thing who lives on another planet). Instead, people are frothing about their God- or constitutionally-given right to walk about packing heat, as if that was being seriously threatened by my comments.

That is just silly.

Dear Lion in the Stars,

(And again…. sigh. Am I going to have to do this every time I use the word "Dear"?)

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I grew up a country girl with a penchant for canoeing and archery (which makes me so cool to my young nieces, what with this Hunger Games crap) and I camped out an awful lot in very, very isolated places full of wildlife. And not once in decades of doing that, did I ever have the need to shoot "wolverines, coyotes, badgers, wolves, feral hogs, feral dogs, etc."

I did get driven out of my camp by bears, twice. I suggest you don't shoot at them if it ever happens to you.

You were charged by a 2000 pound moose? You realize that South Park did an entire bit, once upon a time, at how out-of-season hunters claim that sort of thing to kill game? Because the last thing I would do if two Volkswagens' worth of pissed off herbivore charged me by surprise would be to fumble around for my pistol and try to plink it between the eyes.

I also find your description of your part of Idaho strange: crawling with animals that can stomp you flat into the ground and yet it's too dry to sustain farming? You need a gun because it's the wild, wild west without cellphones, yet the first air rescue tragedy that springs to your mind involves some brilliant hunter or firearms enthusiast who got popped by his own or a friend's gun while farting around in the bush…?

Now there's irony, making my point for me.

But tell me, just for information's sake: how many people die from being attacked by wildlife in Idaho versus being killed by their own guns or the guns of a close associate?

I am truly interested, so let me check my side of the facts…

To begin with, in 2013, there were 227 gun deaths versus 31 murders in your state, so I feel pretty reinforced in my view that guns wouldn't make me safer in Idaho.

And here's something interesting: Idaho had 102 domestic female homicide victims from 2003 to 2011. Of those, almost half – 49 – were killed in a domestic violence incident (as opposed to only 9 guys). And 34 of those women were killed by a gun. That's an average of more than three women a year being killed in Idaho by their domestic partners armed with guns.

So tell me Lion, because I seriously am interested: how many people are killed by wildlife in Idaho per year, on average? (No cheating and counting domestic animals like dogs, cats and goldfish, OK?) I did some research on cougars, which you specifically mention: zero confirmed deaths by cougars in Idaho since forever. Of course, there were those nine men killed in domestic spats during the last decade, so I guess if you stretched your definition of "cougar"… But I doubt you'll find many of the two-legged kind wandering the rural wastelands of your state and I am pretty sure they'd make a point to cross the street to avoid you, in any case, given your description of how you carry yourself.

There are about six fatal feral dog attacks per year in the entire U.S. There's been one recorded wolf attack on humans in all of North American history. I don't think I have ever heard of a case of a wolverine or badger killing a human. Frankly, you're more likely to be killed by a pussy cat.

Interestingly, there is one category of wildlife that causes significant numbers of deaths in Idaho: animals that get hit by cars. So if you are strapping your piece to the hood of your ride, "Car Wars" style, then you might have a point about improved safety. You're still going to need great reflexes!

There is one reason I am bringing this up: you are claiming you need guns to defend yourself from things that have an incredibly small chance of happening. Some here on TMP also claim that entire blocks of humanity need to be distrusted because a few people of that description are psychopathic murderers.

Well, no risk you face in civilian life today – not from terrorists, "criminal thugs", or even rabid squirrels – beats the risk I as an American woman face at the hands of a gun-armed "good guy" man. This isn't a call for disarmament, mind you: it is simply an explanation of why so many intelligent women look at you like you might look at a rattlesnake when they find out you are packing in public, especially if you tell them that you are doing it to protect them. And what's the best way to deal with a rattlesnake? Don't get it angry and slowly back away.

I know that if a man told me that he was packing on a date, I'd get up right there and then, tell him it was fun but sorry, I can't risk my life that way, and I would leave. He can have his gun on his hip or me on his arm and if that's a difficult choice for him to make, we weren't going to make it as a couple, anyhow.

I like playing games with toy soldiers and find no urge to play games with my life.

And finally…. (Good thing I smuggled all those pencils into the Dawghaus. The guards are really lax when it comes to body cavity searches.)

Dear Apache 6,

(Yadayadyada, disclaimer, sigh.)

That's a stirring story about your grandma, to be sure. But one of the memes in this whole debate is that "good citizens" need guns to protect themselves from "bad people" with guns. So when I read your story, the first thing I thought was "Good god, what if both of them had guns?" In one of my muggings, that's what happened. In both of my muggings, one guy (and it always seems to be guys, doesn't it?) came at me from the front and the other from the back. So what a gun was going to do there, other than get taken from me, I don't know.

The second thought I had after reading your story about your grandma was "What did she have in her purse that was worth her life? The company payroll? The cure for cancer?" Because she's a very lucky woman, your Nana. I can think of about a dozen ways how a little old lady pulling a pistol on two muggers could go horribly wrong.

But you got an amusing "just so" story out of it, so I guess the risk was worth it. Tell me: have you ever had to pull your gun to defend yourself?

Go Chris -fabulous writing and surely the last word on the whole matter?

I dunno. All that time in solitary made me hot and bothered. ;)

Dear Chris Vermont (same grammatical and courtesy strictures apply)

One of the scariest people I've ever met was an unpleasant five foot nothing fellow Comcast salesperson. She was a door to door salesperson who carried a .38 in her very large purse.
Just imagine how the castle doctrine (which we do have in Pennsylvania) would apply to a perfect stranger invited into a house and who felt threatened and took out a citizen or two.
She didn't last long. She was a lousy salesperson, with a huge chip on her shoulder. Oddly, she was thought of as an All-Star by the compsny. Maybe they were afraid of her.
Now, I'm 6'2, and my way of dealing with dodgy neighborhoods (a good section of Scranton) was to mark my turf as worked and ask for new sheets. I guess you could call that "profiling" but I'm still alive.

Nobody has yet mentioned defending your home against crazed meth heads. That I think I have under control. I have to because my dog is worthless about that.

So how many times have you had to defend your castle against crazed meth heads, Winston? That certainly must've gotten into the papers, to say the least!

You say this so casually, as if it were a fact of life in middle America, and then people get upset when others say "If that's the case, then the U.S. is indeed a failed state".

No, seriously: have any of the pistol-packing papas posting here actually used a gun to stop a crime?

Wow! Brava, Chris Vermont. Well argued! I look forward to reading more of your posts.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Ocoin – I said the wildlife was dangerous. I didn't say counter-measures weren't available.

your argument is akin to stating a 9mm isn't dangerous because modern medicine is wonderful.

further note the difference between 'dangerous' and 'deadly'.

If you wish to get bitten by a venomous spider on the understanding there's an anti-venon available in a few minutes… I'll watch…

So how many times have you had to defend your castle against crazed meth heads, Winston? That certainly must've gotten into the papers, to say the least!

Never. Not once. But the area I live in is full of 'em.
I don't agree with your argument. As the old saying goes, I'd rather have one and not need one than need one and not have one.
Or, "I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

Oh, and I'd like to give a shout out to the Lads at Frothers, who you assure us are chortling over this. Hi, Jeff, ya big lug. No Jeff. I never gave a dime to the Lads in Belfast when the Lad in Wilkes Barre passed the hat at the Knights of Columbus bar.

Ralph, again you think I'm talking about you

No it's not about me. It's about the USA where I live not Oz or the UK. etc. … But once again, you and others go very OT and many comments have nothing to do with the original thread … IMO …

OK, Winston, let me rephrase my question, then: how many times have the people in your area – who were not involved in the cooking, distribution or consumption of meth themselves (note the condition!) – had to defend their castles against crazed meth heads? Again, this is the kind of stuff that gets in the news, so it should be easy to find out.

Other question: presuming that has happened, has it ever actually happened in the neighborhood you live in? Or are you just talking about the general region you live in?

If you think my argument is "you don't need one", you didn't get my argument at all, Winston. My argument has several points. This has all been tl;dr, I know, so let me resume them for you.

1) People do need to defend themselves.

2) As an American woman, the guy I am most likely going to have to defend myself against is someone like you: a gun-toting, self-proclaimed good guy who happens to be a close associate or ex-associate of mine.

3) Given the above, my packing a gun doesn't make me any safer.

4) In the extremely wild and improbable alternative universe where we are close associates, given the above, you packing a gun doesn't make me any safer.

So which of those arguments of mine do you disagree with?

Just to make you happy here, Winston, and to give you an argument you probably will disagree with, but which I have not yet made, you owning a gun means the odds are much higher that you'll die from that gun than actually use it to hold off any of these notional meth invaders you seem concerned about. Both the stats and my own annecdotal experience tell me that you're more likely to have that gun shoot you than anyone else. So no, it doesn't make you any safer at all. It just makes you feel safer. And I do realize that is important, especially for an older man (and I am not being sarcastic here).

Dear Legion 4,

(I hope that "dear" doesn't get me dawghaused again! Let me make it clear that I am just using it as a conventional written greeting: no need to feel belittled by it, OK? ;) )

No it seems condescending and patronizing … again …

Legion, you are aware that the only link I posted above about who murders women and why comes directly from the FBI, right? If you truly think we live on different planets when I say "The person most likely to kill you, if you are a woman, is a male who is an intimate partner, ex-intimate partner, family member, or other close associate", then you need to think about what your planet is named because those are straight up facts, my friend (I can't call you "hun" because The Editor would probably either think it an ethnic slur or an insult). I live in the U.S., on planet Earth, and that's what the highest law enforcement agency in the land tells us.

I don't doubt the FBI or other LEO's stats … I don't know what it has to do with the original topic ?

So unless you have some really good explanation as to why the FBI (and pretty much every law enforcement agency on planet Earth) would lie about this,

Never said you lied about anything. But again what does this have to do with the original post ?

then I think I am really safe in saying that you need to change your thinking about who is the number one threat to American women when it comes to murder and mayhem. It's not Muslim terrorists or "urban thugs": it's the guy you live with.

I don't have to worry. And who said this topic has anything to do with who the #1 threat to women ? I know if I have to decide, if anyone is a threat to me or my relations, etc. It's "urban thugs and moslem terrorists. And that threat is pretty low. But so is having a flat fire but I still have a spare.

I am sorry to be the bringer of bad tidings, if you weren't aware of this, but pretty much every woman with an IQ higher than a donut

I prefer a Danish … but who care ? It has nothing to do with the original topic. Like most of your comments, IMO.

learns this stuff early on in life. Doesn't mean we still don't end up loving you guys, or at least some of you, so don't get upset and think this is some sort of "man-hating" spree.

Hmmm ? Your posts could be take as otherwise.

All I am saying is that if you are truly afraid of Muslims and immigrants because of things like the Australian incident above,

I'm not afraid of moslems (or anyone else). Only concerned about those that my be terrorists.

women have a hell of a lot more reason, statistically speaking, to be afraid of men. All men. Because, like, how can we know which of you are the good guys and which are the bad guys? Because you tell us?

With all in media about women's equality, and 99.9% of the time I agree with it. I didn't think this was such a problem ? But I can say, anytime anyone you meet on the street, you don't know who are the "bad guys" or girls for that matter. Either sex can use a knife or a gun.

And yet here you are, finding that viewpoint strange.

You find everything about my view point strange. Because I don't believe as you do. And your exception to some of the things I say or who I am. Or who you believe you think you know who I am.

Now you know exactly how I feel when I hear people bad mouthing immigrants and Muslims as a threat. You know what the difference is, though? The statistics are actually well on my side.

Did I bad mouth immigrants or all moslems ? I don't think I did ? Stats on your side or otherwise.

Now let's talk condescending and patronizing. Legion, every time someone brings up anything military, you tell us your service three decades ago makes you an expert on the topic.

No … but people with you outlook read into my comments as condescending, etc. I mention my passed service in my long ago youth, to give my posts some veracity, weight etc. I'm not a expert on many things. But I do have a very good knowledge of some military topic. Like those I have been trained in and experienced. Even if it was long ago. On some topics like being a Rifle Plt Ldr, Mech Co Cdr, Air Ops Ofc, Log/maint ops, etc. I probably know more about that then many here. Save for some other vets who may know more or as much as I do.

Well, I have been living as a woman in Red America for easily as long as you were a soldier, and my experiece is very recent, to boot.

Your experience living as a female in Red (?) America ? You have me there. So ?

So unless you're one of those guys who doesn't think what is good for the goose is good for the gander, you might want to ask yourself why your practical experience as a soldier trumps everyone's opinion,

Again never said that. Reread what I said about my decade in the US ARMY above.

but my practical experience as a woman means nothing at all. Especially when I back up my experience with FBI data.

Oh yes it does. I'm not a women. BUT like I say often, everybody is entitled to an opinion. Whether I or anyone else agrees with it. And everyone it entitled to comment or opinions. But on some topics my experiences and training may probably carry more weight. But that does not mean you will agree with it, and vis versa … If I disagree with someone's opinion/comment and state so and say why. Well that is all the nature of the debate that occurs on certain topics.

Then there's you lecturing me about LEOs and soldiers and how they are experts on evil.

I'm lecturing you ? Have you looked at and reread your posts ?

Legion 4, has it ever occurred to you that there might be the slightest possibility that I have law enforcement or military experience myself?

How would I know. I only can base my responses based on you comments.

Not all folks wear their service on their chest,

Again, I only comment about my military experience to add veracity to my posts. If you find that wrong or something. That is on you or anyone else who has a problem with that. And this is a wargame site. So I'd think some may find my comments of some worth. Even if it is not you or others that think like you. Here on TMP.

as if it were the most important thing they've done in their life.

Well IMO that was the most important thing I've done in my life. I volunteered to serve my country. In the Infantry, in nothing but combat units. For over a decade. And took responsibility for the lives and well being on over 100s troops. Plus millions of dollars worth of equipment paid by US tax payers. I took my oath and responsibilities very seriously. If you don't like that or see it as I do. That's on you. But you asked indirectly. So that is my reply. Like it or not …

Say what you want, but realize you look pretty silly when you do that sort of thing and then call others "condescending".

Again that was not my intent. But if some takes it that way. That is on them. If you or someone thinks I'm "silly" that is their opinion. But I'm not here for you or anyone else's entertainment But laugh it up if you wish. If anyone has a problem with anything I say. They can hit [!] or Stifle or Ignore button.

You claim people want to kill you, L4, so they are evil? Who, in fact, wants to kill you, personally? If you are talking about generic "terrorists" or something like that, fine.

Yes, that is who I am talking about. Who do you think I'm talking about ? [rhetorical question]

But then surely I am allowed to consider as "evil" people who would kill me or strip me of my rights just for being a woman and "acting up"?

And who did or is doing that ? At least on this site. I can't control what happens to you on the street. Few can in reality.

But applause to you, Legion 4, for coming up with an actual definition of evil,

Sounds condescending, patronizing, etc. Or hyperbole. But that may just be me.

which neither Mr. Jackson (who began all this by bringing the term up in the first place) or anyone else has done so far.

I respect Dn Jackson for his long service as LEO and IIRC he served in Desert Storm. He has a CV that to me is very respectable and valid in many cases here.

Your definition is basically "my people, right or wrong". While I appreciate the sentiment, let me respectfully point out that it is a definition of good and evil that is in no ways different from that of the "urban thugs and criminals"

No … what some like you and some others here do not seems to get. I'm not a thug, criminal, terrorist, etc. And yes … yes, we all know that old saying, something like, one man's terrorists is another's freedom fighter. So spare me.

so many people seem to be buying guns to protect themselves from.

Ah … yes … but again I'm not a criminal, thug, etc. How do you know that ? You don't, welcome to reality.

Al Capone himself would be quite happy with that definition.

Again … he was a gangster and some would say sociopath or psychopath. I'd probably agree.

If Mr. Jackson, however, would like to give us a definition of "evil" that somehow is logically able to take in Castro's torturers while ignoring Argentina's, as I said above, I am all ears.

I'm sure Dn Jackson is well aware of both those situations you ask about. And I don't think he'd condones either. To me it's almost a bit disrespectful for you to insinuate, if in fact you are, that sort of thing, IMO.

And let me add, I understand why you may want to get on, if I may, a soapbox on women's rights, women in the USA plight, etc.. However, what is good for the goose is good for the gander … ? As you say, Not all folks wear their service on their chest, … but let's remember this is a wargame site. Dealing with military topics, etc.

I don't think it is a "I am woman hear me roar" site ? Did you bring that soap box in with you or did you Bill get it from the TMP props department ? However Bill may be game for a new board, entitled … something like I said, " I am woman hear me roar". I think it's kind of catchy … Bill what do you think ?

Chris
Your beliefs are yours, mine are mine.
But let me at least address them. In your mind I cannot refute them so I won't even try.

1. Of course we all have to defend ourselves.
2. "Someone like you." Nice. Gratuitous ad hominem arguments always win on style points.
3. I agree that you should not pack. You would probably hurt yourself. Just like I thought that my fellow co-worker should not have packed.
4. It's just as well we do not move in the same circles. I do not pack in public. But I can and will defend my home. So unless you play AWI Miniatures in northeast Pennsylvania and want to get in a game, you are unlikely to need defending at my house. As for socializing at my home, I fear the age discrepancy precludes that. Do you like old guys?
I won't say that my house doesn't have anything worth stealing, but those guys aren't rational, so that's s lame argument, which I admit you have not made.
A friend or two, by the way, HAVE defended their home. I will not invade their privacy by giving any links. And I will not tell you where or when. Believe me or do not believe me. I don't really care what. Heck. This is The Internet! Everything is true!

Anyway, my participation in this argument is PROBABLY over, but I've made that statement before and not kept my word. It's pointless but that never stopped me before.
We are not arguing to each other, but to the statements we want each other to have made.
Happy New Year!

To explain point 3 without sounding condescending. No one who thinks they should not carry or pack should carry. That's all I meant.

See? I broke my promise with no provocation.

Bravo Chris!!!
One of the most impressive well argued demolitions of all time here on TMP.
I wish I knew you personally.

Go Girl!