You're going to believe what you want to believe.
Bogus Australian Post-Gun Ban Crime Info floating around the Internet and on Facebook
SEE ABOVE LINK.
Posted on 01/14/2013 11:29:41 AM PST by Mozilla
This video was sent to me by an Aussie friend, pleading with me to not allow ourselves to go the way of OZ. It has gotten so crazy there, that legislators are quibbling over the definition of a home invasion, so as not to admit that gun control has made Australians less safe.
Check out the video.
(Excerpt) Read more at therightscoop.com ...
RE: Home invasion.
Right now you have to convince the invader not to harm or take anything. (honest). Should you, the homeowner, resist to the point where the invader is injured you are brought up on charges. One incident several years ago and homeowner was charged with knifing the intruder. The homeowner got let off because it could not be determined who had the knife. Same goes for England. You hurt the perp (hey, that sorta rhymes) it’s your neck, not the invader. Of course you have to look at the country as being ubber-liberal. Coming soon to our shores.
And I would add, don't even think about it until you understand that it's totally pointless (if not downright dishonest) to compare our two different cultures on the basis of gun-laws.
I saw that after I commented on the video. Were all those people lying? What does Fair Dinkum mean?
May I suggest, as an Australian, you tell the ‘youngish Australian woman’ to mind her own business, our nations have an entirely different weapons culture, and share nothing by way of history related to fire-arms.
Comparisons of this nature are useless and offensive to both.
Their comments are all strung together in a clever piece of propaganda, and yes, if you look at the gun death figures I provided ( or research the stats yourself) you will see there are several who are lying.
You’re being played.
But it doesn’t change the numbers.
And we are two different cultures.
Keep your guns, I believe that if I lived in the US, that is one of the FIRST things I would purchase.
FAIR DINKUM means the truth, the real thing...kinda.
Thus, I resent Australian crime being elevated to suit your situation, and the only way they can do this is with lying. THE NUMBERS THEMSELVES DON’T LIE.
P.S.
Why is it always Australia that is singled out when it comes to dicussions about fire-arm laws? Our public remains in the majority in agreement with the laws in place. The number of gun deaths in this country don’t warrant any lengthy discussion, the numbers are miniscule.
Why stick your nose into Australian laws, those who want to own a gun can do so, with certain restrictions and safety rules. There is no outcry here, that I am aware of.
Why don’t you go digging around a little closer to home, maybe Canada?
Or don’t they have a gun culture either?
"Gun deaths" are only part of the total crime picture. Focusing just on "gun deaths" paints a misleading picture. (I'm absolutely certain that some people, such as Piers Morgan, do this quite deliberately.)
The UK has a lower "gun death" rate than the US but also has a much higher rate of violent crime. Disarming victims gives criminals a free hand to assault them with knives, baseball bats, or just their fists. While these crimes obviously don't show up in the "gun deaths" totals, they are still very serious crimes. Banning guns won't eliminate them and can easily be expected to increase them.
Speak for yourself, I understand what you write relates to your crime stats in the US.
Leave Australia out of it.
What I see continuously happening is that our culture and stats are manipulated to make them look WORSE than they are.
Deal with your own problems.
Australians are not, and should not, be telling you how to deal with your problems, and vice-versa.
WHY bring Australian laws into YOUR situation, which is primarilly one of DEMOGRAPHICS!
You're going to believe what you want to believe.
Bogus Australian Post-Gun Ban Crime Info floating around the Internet and on Facebook
SEE ABOVE LINK.
I can't help but wonder that when a "Real" emergency or what have you comes to a country how long these liberal fantasies would endure.
Liberals can only exist in a time of plenty and relative peace, when the Rubber hits the road and Men (and women) have to do what they have to survive, those rules get thrown out mighty fast.
As to your question of “Why Australia is singled out for gun discussion”. I didn't know that it was, I have never heard the subject brought up until now.
I have never been to Australia but I have been to New Zealand, I have cousins there. NZ is the most fabulously beautiful place I have ever been and I have a feeling that Australia is the same.
Regretfully, Australia seems to get thrown in to the discussion about gun laws almost every time the subject comes up, as do the exaggerated crime statistics. I’ve been debunking that garbage for years, fair dinkum.
You might be living in our country, but you quite evidently do not understand our laws.
Self-defenceIn the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Howe (1958) SASR 95, Mason J formulated six propositions on the law of self-defence were accepted as a model direction on self-defence in murder trials. Thus, a full acquittal was achieved if the jury found that the accused had reasonably believed they were threatened with death or serious bodily harm and, if so, that the force used was reasonably proportionate to the perceived danger. In Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (1987) 162 CLR 645 the victim rented a unit from the defendant. The defendant became increasingly annoyed with the victim who kept leaving the security gates of the unit unlocked. After one heated exchange, the defendant was stabbed by the tenant. The defendant, fearing that the tenant was about to get a gun from his car, rushed off and got his shotgun. The defendant returned, and shot and killed the tenant. The majority of the High Court said at 661:
The question to be asked in the end is quite simple. It is whether the accused believed upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to do what he did. If he had that belief and there were reasonable grounds for it, or if the jury is left in reasonable doubt about the matter, then he is entitled to an acquittal. Stated in this form, the question is one of general application and is not limited to cases of homicide.
In Conlon (1993) BFW 709 the accused used a shotgun to repel two trespassers whom he believed to be stealing his cannabis plants. His belief was affected by drunkenness and a schizoid personality disorder which were relevant to determine whether the Crown had proved that he had not acted in self defence: specifically whether he believed that it was necessary to do what he did and whether that was a reasonable belief. This question seems advantageous to the defence because it tests whether the belief is reasonable to the accused (a subjective test), not reasonable to the reasonable person (objective test).
Under South Australian law, the general defence appears in s15(1) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) for defending a person’s life, and s15A(1) for defending property, subject to a hybrid test, i.e. the defendant honestly believed the threat to be imminent and made an objectively reasonable and proportionate response to the circumstances as the accused subjectively perceived them.
No 28 of 2003—Criminal Law Consolidation (Self Defence) Amendment Act 2003 [1] In July 2003, the Rann Government (SA) introduced laws allowing householders to use “whatever force they deem necessary” when confronted with a home invader. Householders who kill or injure a home invader escape prosecution provided they can prove they had a genuine belief that it was necessary to do so to protect themselves or their family.
Is dinkum an English word? Where does this originate?
Maybe when she's lived in the US long enough she'll understand better. Meanwhile, I see no harm in reminding her that making critical comments about your host country isn't always welcome. People who say things like 'you really should do something about that' generally means they have no idea...or have given no thought to the issue. It's just rhetoric.
Here you go:
What are the origins of the phrase "fair dinkum" and how did it come to mean what it does?January 22, 2005
According to Melvyn Bragg's The Adventure of English: The Biography of a Language, "dinkum" comes from the English Midlands and meant work. "Fair dinkum" referred to a fair day's work and subsequently fair play.
M. Griffiths, Waterloo
The word "dinkum" was reputedly coined on the Australian goldfields. It comes from one of the Chinese dialects widely spoken at the diggings: "din" and "kum" loosely translating as "true gold".
Catherine Le Breton, Leura
Fair Dinkum was a response of the early Chinese goldminers to the question: "Are you finding a fair amount of gold?" because "din-gum" means "good gold". So over time the expression has become a positive response to a good news story.
What can I say? I read it in the Courier-Mail. Yell at them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.