Among the comments that follow (June 7 12.04p.m.) you will find this from a frequent commenter “Ymarsakar”. I have crossed swords with him on a number of occasions, and this that follows will give a measure of him (or her). He is responding (I presume) to this comment posted about 12 hours prior…
An interesting quote from Yon's article:
"A smart Australian recently told me during an interview that “terrorist” is not a subjective term; after all, terror is their principle weapon, and so the term is accurate."
Apparently, there really IS at least one, despite what we've been led to believe. [hehehe there might be three if you include two that I know]
Ymarsakar’s response -
A lot of Australians can't defend themselves because they would get charged with assault. Aussie land has banned handguns and anything other "excessive retaliation" in self-defense.
So what the women do to stay safe, is to bring along mace cans, bats, and etc in their homes and to carry.
In Australia, if someone attacks you with his fists and he is 300 pounds, 6'2, and you're a woman that is 90 pounds 5'2 who uses a knife to kill the assailant, you can be charged with manslaughter or assault yourself.
Why? Simply because you "exceeded" the force levels the state will allow you. If you use a baseball bat to beat on someone using only his fists against you, that is called excessive force and is not covered by the self-defense laws in Aussie land. Assuming any self-defense laws exist there.
See it doesn't really matter to the judges and the government if you are 90 pounds and can't fight fist to fist with a 300 pound 6 foot man. They don't care. Just as they don't care if they confiscate your home with Eminent Domain here in the US. They can do it, therefore they will.
So sure, you won't be murdered by firearms compared to the United States. However, living under the tyranny and terror of unjust laws and the rule of criminals and judges is not my idea of liberty either.
Criminals will always pump iron so that they can pick on weaker people, they will always band together to form gangs and groups that outnumber the "mark". Disarming everyone, simply gives the advantage to the enemy, because the enemy is on the attack and he will always bring a superior force to the equation.
A person trained in the use of a gun is a great equalizer when 3 hooligans begin to oppress that person.
Go here for a story about how a former Marine kicked 4 criminals' ass, two armed with guns at that, because the Marine was trained and hardcore at the ready to do unto others before they do unto him
Aussies are living under the threat of constant violence. Not from the US, but by their own warlords. you should feel pity for such a condition. As anyone would feel pity for New orleans, when Ray I wanna confiscate guns Nagin stole people's ability to defend themselves and allowed rioters, rapists, looters free reign in the city.
If you are attacked by superior numbers, people who have planned to do harm to you and have chosen the location of battle with the intent of surrounding you and bashing your skull into the ground, then your only hope is to break their morale. You break their morale by shooting one of them in the balls with your gun so that he goes screaming off to fairy land, stunning and shocking his com-patriots. If you don't have a gun, you pick the meanest and toughest leader amongst the group and you take him down by crushing his wind pipe, exploding his eye, shattering his temple, and breaking his knee in whatever order the situation presents itself. The only hope a small number of people on the defense has against a greater number of attacks is to ATTACK.
Nobody wins a fight just parrying and blocking blows, attack hard enough and furiously enough and you will buy time to either escape or disable others.
The Australians see this "self-defense as an attack strategy" as being unlawful. The person who attacked you with the bat is the victim here, if you reply with a gun, because it just ain't "fair" you know. That is the legal philosophy of Australia, and it has had untoward effects in the culture.
I started with the thought, “This is a joke, right?” It has to be! No one in their right senses would see the world like this?
Don’t get me wrong. There are considerable differences between NZ and Australia. There are also many very close similarities. Those similarities include law, and attitude to violence. If Y and his ilk think that Bondi and La Perouse are an accurate picture of Australia (has anyone heard of any continuing “Muslim / White” riots since the end of summer?) then Porirua and Otara would have to be taken as NZ’s “picture”. I have been assaulted, twice, in public places. In both instances the attacks were unprovoked, and the people who attacked me were white. One guy tried to break his nose on my eyebrow and succeeded; three stitches earned. The other (I thought) had broken my glasses when he whacked me on the back of my head from behind; a small cut between my knuckles from an upper incisor.
As for the law, the right to defend depends upon an old English legal definition of “reasonable” – a term used in very nearly every area of law and not just that of inflicting violence. In this instance, I am entitled to use “reasonable force” in defending myself, my family and my property. Perhaps one of the difficulties that Y is having is in understanding this little term. For a start, “reasonable force” depends upon the level of threat. If someone grabs my camera and makes off with it, I am entitled to pursue and detain, that is all; because there is no threat of greater violence. If a farmer living a remote area disturbs three guys stealing his quadbike at night he is entitled to shoot and wound if he believes that they are armed; like waving a rifle at him.
Yes we have “home invasion crimes”, about three reported in the past ten years; yes there are murders, as Y points out the overall and gun murder rates per population are well below those of the US - by a factor of about 20 as it happens; yes there is occasional violence in the streets, Queen St (Auckland’s equivalent to central NY) and Manners St (Wellingtons answer to Kings Cross in Sydney) are not places to linger after midnight but the perpetrators are predominantly teenagers, pissed or bombed or both, with attitudes in direct proportion to their testosterone levels. On the other hand, the risk of being set upon, beaten up, robbed or murdered in the street even in those places is so close to zero that I would still go there given reason and opportunity. Otara Market on a Saturday morning is a tourist attraction. Some of the neighbouring residential streets are pretty tough, but that is their patch and I have no need to go there…
With that as a basis, I am at a loss for words when I consider Y’s attitude to his place in society, how to relate with other people…
Carrying mace? Carrying ANY weapons? I have no need to. My wife feels no need (that she has mentioned to me anyhoos) for “protection” other than that which is advertised in women’s magazines and tv. Besides which, it is as illegal as a gun in NZ and probably also in Aussie.
Do we have “warlords”? Well I guess that some of the local gang leaders might like to consider themselves as such. But having met the Stormtroopers leadership (through the sponsorship of my wife and her work in the kindergartens) I have a respect for some of them. There are others whom one would not want to meet; consider them as equivalent to the mafioso rather than warlords.
Are Nzers down-trodden? Well, if we are then give me this life over any other. Aussies? Try tying down a kangaroo sometime sport and you will find out how likely that they are – ‘sides which aren’t the Aussies number one good mates with GWB… you know, the one that looks like a chimp on acid.
Y, you are welcome to your world of total paranoia. It obviously deserves you. I hope with all of my heart that your gun and your god never fail you. One thing is certain. With people such as you alive and well in America, I still have no reason to visit – ever! And if I did, I would never ever bang a paper bag behind you – far too damned dangerous to be worth it.
I hope, just as fervently, that you never have reason to visit our fair shores, or even Aussieland. The spiritual shock, the mental nakedness you would be subjected to from having to leave your armoury at the door, is a torment to which no man should be subjected, not even an alQaeda suspect.
As an aside… We had a tv “reality programme” a couple years back, “Border Patrol”, following the NZ Customs Dept and Ag and Fish Inspectors in their various daily tasks. A fair part of that is the “Anything to declare” business at airports. There was an incident, quite sad in one respect, where a 50-ish American gent and his wife arrived after (what is a very) long flight from LA. They were taken aside after collecting their baggage and asked if there was anything they needed to declare. He avowed that there was not, so he and his wife were taken to a separate area and a search was undertaken. He had three handguns and ammunition stowed in his suitcase. When it was explained that he would have to leave them in Customs bond for collection on his departure and pay a fine for failing to declare his weapons (about NZD250), he decided that he would prefer to return to the US. It took some while to sink in, but he eventually commented that none of the law enforcement officers were carrying visible arms.
“No, there is no need.”
It occurs to me – this is not the last that will be seen of this comment. It is too good to lose in the virtual Unterlands as a prime example of how one American atleast sees the world.
I feel very sorry - for him.