Melbourne Home Invasions

Post Reply New Topic

I had considered going to Victoria to live 5 years ago.
Talk about dodging a bullet.
I'm so pleased I don't live in the Socialist State of Victoria.

I have reservations on some of the things he says, btw.
He is advocating for more guns in Australia.
An emphatic NO!
And pepper spray?
That isn't going to be abused, surely. <sarcasm>

A Sydney family goes to Melbourne to experience Victorian life through a home invasion.
As I said, I seemed to have dodged a bullet in not going to the crime capital of Australia.
A good place to go to die, since they have legalised euthanasia in that state, but for safe living, perhaps not so much.

If I want to live in fear, but with a gun, I could always emigrate to America.
Decisions, decisions.


https://youtu.be/53i7w-Q6ZY4

We don’t get many home invasions here. Cause they got shot or run away.

Yes, the question of having guns isn't black or white.
But I do see it in terms of dark grey personally, no offence intended.
I'd rather go the taser or pepper spray direction, but the probability of abuse would be extremely high, imo.
Aren't pepper sprays the weapon of choice of Antifa?

Antifia uses guns, knifes, pointy objects, bars, pipes bricks anything they can get their hands on.

I think all good people should have access to guns.
Anyone can have pepper spray, stun guns, and tasers here no background check crime Use of such things is low if not zero.
I would rather be dead then live in a nation that doesn’t allow me to defend myself and punishes those who do.

I think I've been pretty cagey on my opinions on guns on this site for a while. But tonight I'm feeling pretty what the hell so here it goes.

Guns are neither good nor bad they just up the damage output. Criminals need to worry about homeowners having guns. Police need to worry about criminals having guns. People who want to cause damage have a legal accessible option for that. People who want to protect themselves have a legal accessible option to do that. Most gun owners are more likely to die by a gun than be saved by them, but gun owners whether saved or killed by guns are likely operating in rough circles. Would the kill/save results be any different if the weapon of choice was a knife? Possibly better cause knives are less lethal. Possibly worse cause knives take more skill to wield effectively, and that favors people who intend to do harm over people who want to protect themselves.

I have no desire to own a gun. In my entire life I've never felt seriously physically threatened. However in the U.S. we have the second ammendment. That means legally the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. People point to the clause about the militia, but the militia was just a bunch of neighborhood watch guys of the 18th century that had no formal legal authority. George Zimmerman (whatever you think of him) was militia and had a constitutional right to a firearm. If we're a rule of law society (evidence is mixed on that) then we should follow our highest law and not just disregard it because we find it convenient. We have an ammendment process to change the highest law when necessary.

The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. means that if anyone successfully invaded us we'd be damned hard to occupy. Military superiority is unquestionable but guerilla resistances have vexed occupying forces since the U.S. defeated the world's most powerful military in the revolutionary war. If you want another (non-modern example) the Spanish Phillipines fell to the U.S. in 3 days, but insurgent fighters (sound familiar) forced the U.S. to grant them independence after World War II.

So I have mixed feelings about guns. In some ways they're beneficial, in others harmful. It's nearly impossible to determine the net effect relative to other countries because social factors play a role. However, it is necessary as a rule of law society to actually follow the law.

Another gun massacre in America.
Same old same old. <shrug>