Long, I know, but I tried to be thorough for anyone that hasn't followed previous discussion here.
I would urge you to look closely at any statistics in Australia.
They are almost always faked or misrepresented by the gun banners here.
The most widely quoted are simply made up from whole cloth.
Bumble, defense law varies state to state here, and it is changing rapidly.
You are allowed to act in defense of others, which is one of the biggest changes.
In most states you are only allowed to use deadly force to defend your life or in defense of others, but this can be a little misleading.
You are not required to flee and you may resist a robber.
The standard here is 'fear for your life', and the case law is changing for the better, but it still needs to be boilerplate and we have a long way to go.
Texas allows you to defend property specifically, and this was recently tested and upheld.
At night you are allowed to defend property when your life is in no danger whatsoever.
A huge part of the propaganda here is the fake "assault rifle" scam.
Assault rifles have always been legal under federal law, but became highly restricted in 1934 and 1968, which made them extremely costly.
I know a number of people that own them, but it is very, very expensive, as they blocked most manufacture and importation.
Although I own an assault rifle parts kit, to meet federal law, I have to disable the select fire function that separates assault rifles from any other lightweight, low power, semi-automatic rifle, basically any deer rifle.
Most deer rifles would have more power than an assault rifle, which must be low power to be useful.
When the banners talk about "assault rifles" here they are not talking about assault rifles at all.
And the fake "assault rifle" ban from 1994 never went out of force for imported weapons.
In fact, it continues to be strengthened.
But they don't talk about that, as to talk about the real world would be inconvenient.
I am quite baffled that anyone would give up their right to personal defense for any reason.
The exploitation of spree killings is especially transparent, as they are so anomalous.
I think publicity about them has more to do with their occurrence than anything else, so the banners hold more responsibility than anyone now.
But they are not understood at all, and statistics about them are completely meaningless.
They do seem related to stress in society.
These events are so incredibly rare that putting emphasis on them is wildly disingenuous and misplaced.
The rhetoric does not fool most people here.
There are a million other threats to children that could be addressed more effectively, but again, looking at reality is inconvenient for an agenda.
It is the usual one for people in power.
The greeks even addressed whether the government has the power to do things that people wish for, when it is only wishful thinking.
The point of killing school children is to step out of society completely, to reject all law, all standards.
How does anyone think that law has authority over anyone doing such a thing, for whatever reason?
How can anyone else pretend to understand?
And in the real world, does australia, even though isolated by water, have enough control over ALL boat traffic to control ALL smuggling?
Not according to what I hear.
More importantly, rifles are not RMDs, though the president has been describing them as such.
The pattern throughout the world has long been to use more effective weapons for this sort of thing, explosives usually, though a significant number of spree killings recently have been done by knife.
In china, this might be out of necessity, but in other countries, guns are more than easy to obtain, but not used for this.
In some cases, the killers had guns, but did not use them.
A knife is just as effective, when distance from a victim is not needed.
i would note that a significant number of serial killers, specialists in murder, never use a gun.
Distance is the reason a gun is so effective for defense.
Though again inconvenient for the banners, there is a pattern of gun use for murder in gun ban countries, especially near australia.
It usually involves zip guns, that is, improvised guns, using shotgun shells.
A planned murder may not require many shots of high calibre.
If you have a hardware store, then the parts are readily at hand.
And I would note, with all the hysteria, that machine guns are very easy to manufacture.
It is old, old technology.
In the usa, you are more likely to be eaten by domestic dogs, than killed by an assault rifle.
You are more than twice as likely to be beaten to death, than shot by a fake "assault rifle", or a low power, standard rifle in the usa.
And on the dog front, the last time I fired it was to protect myself from two dangerous pit bulls.
And I was undergunned.
Much easier to stop a man.
What will you do in australia?
i really don't understand the rationality being used.
Dangerous people will always be dangerous.
People that aren't dangerous don't become a risk because of guns.
There is no magic here.
This brings me to the suicide risk.
Some people that don't know guns may find them attractive for this.
I do not.
It's not like hollywood, and the forensic pictures are out there to prove it, including the horrific survivors of suicide attempts.
If a gun was instant death, reliably, they wouldn't have captured someone in boston alive after how many shootouts and hundreds of rounds of rifle fire?
The primary method of suicide, certainly for men, is single car accidents.
Some argue that for women, poison or drugs, is the usual technique.
These ratios apply in highly gun immersed cultures, except where vehicles are rare.
Australia has a high availability of vehicles, I think.
The right of an individual to defend themselves and others, is a right all people everywhere are born with, not just a special constitutional right we have in the united states.
I can not understand surrendering it, especially given the weak justifications used to pass such egregious laws.
I hope you never regret it, but I fear you will.
The loss of australia as a democracy would be a great loss to the world, and I would note that australia has been a notably reliable ally of the usa, even when other countries were not.