board77

eborr - Parkview is just fine to live in. The city CBD's are generally places to be careful in - just careful, not like you will get in a dodgy situation if you are there. As you say, as long as you are sensible, you won't easily come to harm.

I love my country, warts and all!

Alatar - Faramond's a sensible chap, I'm sure he won't be too biased ...

Griff you are right to do so, I have only been back once since we left, I came back in 2000 and driving in on the highway from the airport, that first view of the tall building of Jo'burg out of the smog bought tears to my eyes.

Oh! Yes, the Hillbrow tower ... there's something about that skyline that grows on you ... I see it every morning driving in to work, and I've gone from not caring about it too much to really liking seeing it. And in the afternoons I can take in the Pretoria skyline, too ...

When I returned from being in Poland for the job, just being back in my country really touched me. Cresting the hill to Pretoria and suddenly looking down and seeing my home city nestled in the hills ... then taking the familiar roads to my home ... humans are strange creatures! It really touched me as well.

That's why I want this country to work so badly, why I don't want crime and lawlessness to win out. It is such a lovely place, big enough for all its citizens. And like all countries, it needs politicians with smaller salaries and bigger hearts It already has big-hearted citizens

I SO understand Griff's love of her country, no matter how other people choose to act.

Griffon64 ROCKS.

Just SAYIN'!





Here's another question, though, and it's in TOTAL serious mode.

Faramond posed the question "what else have you got, other than guns?" (paraphrased ) and no one responded to that.. I am interested in whatever suggestions you may have!

We have established, in the main, that most people agree it is okay to defend yourself in your own home (as long as you have attended enough funerals, apparently... )

We have apparently established that swords do not present a useful defense.

We have also established that using a killing force to defend yourself is not generally palatable, if there is an alternative available. But, and this is the burning question... what would that alternative be?

Since facing my own intruder, while I was alone, in my pajamas (which somehow made it WORSE ) I have often considered this question.

I did not like being defenseless, no matter how much of a social liberal I actually am.

I do not want the responsibility of owning a firearm. (!)

The only choices, then, that I have come up with (please don't laugh) is either a TASER weapon (and I'm not thrilled with this, as one has to be fairly close to someone to make it work) or... don't laugh!... my... ummm.... fire extinguisher?

I know that's weird. And I haven't ever actually discharged a fire extinguisher, but I've seen it done, and I have two in my home... it does have a bit of a reach, and it seems to me that a forceful dose of whatever chemical that is would distract a potential assailant long enough for me to flee. Or not?

What (and this is totally serious, I need to address this, if only to make the nightmares STOP!) is your collective suggestion?

Pepper spray?

Anthriel, I don't think there is an easy solution to this. Basically most people come across intruders unawares. Are they going to calmly allow the resident to go rummaging around in the house to get the weapon of choice; even mine, the kitchen sharpening steel? Are you going to walk about the house for several decades armed with your knife, sidearm, pepper spray whatever? Everyone is thinking in terms of weapons, conditioned by Hollywood, fantasy etc. The solutions, such as they are, are a low crime rate (huh), good locks and alarms, presence of mind and the ability to evade an intruder and the ability to use what you carry around with you all the time. Take self defence classes. There is more to it than striking a powerful blow.

ETA In the countries where firearm possession is simple and commonplace I would have thought a safe option would be to have a replica gun handy. What intruder would argue with someone brandishing it and if it is taken off you you are still safe as are any children in the house who are tempted to play with it.

Why am I suddenly reminded of old cartoons where a flag pops out of the gun and says "BANG".

Not that it's a bad idea, but I just can't get the image of Wile E. Coyote out of my head.

Quote:

Take self defence classes. There is more to it than striking a powerful blow.

As in? Even though I am a fairly frequent visitor of the local gym, I harbour no delusions about my physical strength against that of the average male.

Quote:

would be to have a replica gun handy

This is actually an interesting thought. Just intimidation, without the killing force? Of course, if HE decided to ramp it up to kill or be killed, I'd be stuck with a toy gun. But as I have doubts as to whether I could willingly kill another human, this point is moot...

Quote:

Are you going to walk about the house for several decades armed with your knife, sidearm, pepper spray whatever?

No, of course. Silly Tosh. But perhaps one could have it somewhere where one could find it quickly?


And what of pepper spray, as Dave suggests? Is that something which can incapacitate someone from afar?

I notice no one has commented on the fire extinguisher idea (you're probably all overcome with laughter... )

It'd depend on the contents of the fire extinguisher; in some cases the effect would be similiar to pepper spray. However, a fire extinguisher is designed to shoot harder and for longer than a pepper spray can, making it heavier and thus a bit less practical.

I can handle the weight of the thing... even without the extraordinary strength that panic can give you, I can easily heft a fire extinguisher.

In my own case, I had plenty of notice that the man was breaking in to my home (even though it was surreal, it was obvious) and I had time to fetch a weapon, if I had had one available.

It was only much later that I thought of the fire extinguishers; other than that, I had squat.

Just luck!

Fire extinguishers and tasers can be just as ineffecient as guns as self-defense weapons. Even martial arts can depending on what your assailant is brandishing. No matter how much martial arts you know, an assailant with a gun at greater than arms distance from you, might not be so afraid of firing.

One possible purpose for a gun is self-defense. It isn't the only purpose, and I'd wager, not even the number one purpose for most people. Saying things like "you are more likely to get hurt by your own gun or hurt a family member than a robber" makes me go, there are three types of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. Comments like that don't actually prove anything as to why guns MUST BE a silly thing to own except to provide conjecture as to one possible reason.

As a self-defense weapon, a baseball bat might be your best bet simply because you can keep it next to your bed at night with no worries that your six-year-old is going to accidentally kill your four-year-old (because you are an irresponsible gun owner). Plus, you can hide the bat better than a fire extinguisher. Personally, I think I'd keep a chainsaw under my bed. My hope is that any potential assailant is going to think twice after entering the home of a man wielding a chainsaw just on sound alone.

ETA: Off-topic: since the exodus from Manwe, the conservative voices have been much louder-- which is fine considering how loud the liberal voices were for almost a year before.

tosh - the thing with locks and bolts on your house is ... it reminds you you are not safe. I've been living with house alarms and security doors for the last two decades of my life, and it can wear on the soul a little bit. Arming that house alarm as you go to sleep in the evenings is a reminder that you are not as safe in your house as you want to be! And good locks does not protect you from the intruder overpowering you as you enter your house.

Self defence - if you are proficient in it, you can defend yourself even though you don't have much strength. I have some self defence training beyond the crude "kick him inna nuts" method popular culture advocates for women but not nearly enough to be effective at all. If you are not proficient and confident in whatever self defence method you are trained in, you are in worse danger than you would have been untrained. Angering an assailant by and uneffective attack is more dangerous than co-operating and hoping he doesn't harm or kill you, just take your stuff.

And Anth - a fire extinguisher could work. Maybe you should invest the time and a bit of cash for the refilling of yours to find out HOW the thing work. Find out from the fire department if they have classes in fire fighting so you can get to use an actual extinguisher and find out how far it sprays, how long it lasts, whether you can easily control it, kind of thing.



As an aside, the real solution is to remove crime from society, I think.

And that does not neccesarily mean better law enforcement.

Crime gets committed, amongst others, by the hungry and down-on-luck. Modern society fuels that source of crime. For people to live in a brick house and drive a good car, others have to go without. The luxury life first world citizens lead is unfortunately by and large built on the backs of the poor. In order for that car, that house, to be affordable to Joe Normal, cheap labour had to be used. Trendy clothes may well have been made in a sweatshop factory in the east somewhere. And so on. While society works on the 80/20 principle where 80 percent of wealth sits in the hands of 20% of the population, crime will likely be there.

I don't neccesarily agree with the viewpoint in this paragraph, but it is interesting to think about. That we who have so much gripe about others wanting to take some of it without realizing fully what the dynamics of the situation may be.

Griff

if more White South Africans had though like you in the past, then they wouldn't have had half of the troubles that there are now.

Quote:

if more White South Africans had though like you in the past, then they wouldn't have had half of the troubles that there are now.

I know that. Though I hold that point of view to a large extent, I also refuse to personally atone for the mistakes of the generations before me - those mistakes were not mine or my generation's. I cannot build up something new from the ashes of past mistakes if I am to be shackled with blame and guilt forever. I can either grovel on the ground or help build tomorrow. Not both.

I am not comfortable to have my culture group of "White South Africans" addressed in a "suck it up, you created it" fashion, by the way.

Propaganda, is a horrible, horrible thing. Coupled with excessive nationalism and patriotism, it is horrible. It makes people think they are better than others. It makes them think other people deserve to die, deserve to suffer, or are a lesser class of human, because they dare oppose the politics of the powers that be in their country. It is a terrible thing - a shut mind ... it created Apartheid South Africa, and it still creates monstrous political situations accross the globe.

Also, every first world country - the States, the UK, Europe, Australia, the first world portion of South Africa ... in fact virtually if not every poster on B77 has a life that is built on the poverty of others, by the application of my viewpoint. Not just in South Africa. Everywhere. Some of the first world's cars, for example, are manufactured in my country because both cheap labour and skilled engineers are available here. That makes a first world citizen's car cheaper and his or her lifestyle better. The worker goes home to a single room shack and a simple meal.

South Africa had a very visible, and a racial, division of these lines. But those lines actually are drawn accross the globe.

It is not just White South Africans who should have been thinking differently. Nor is it just Caucasians. It is humanity as a whole. Please don't single out my countrymen.

I am not angry or anything, by the way. Just stating a point of view.

Well said Griff.

The problem with the idea that ‘my wealth is built on another’s poverty’ is that it implies that the economy makes zero net gain. Of course, there are many cases where one’s wealth is gained from the exploitation of others, but this isn’t always the case.

Suppose I’m a baker. I take eggs, butter, sugar and flour and make a sponge cake. I bought all of my ingredients for $10 and make $20 worth of cakes for an hour’s work. I now have $10 profit, and that $10 wasn’t taken from another person. In a capitalist economy, the value of a product is simply the amount of money that people are willing to pay for it, and people are willing to pay more for a cake than they are for the eggs, sugar, butter and flour that have gone into it. The $10 is created from my labour.

This works on a national level as well. For most of its history Australia was a closed economy; we traded little; and mostly with other western nations, especially the UK. Behind tariff barriers, our economy chugged along happily. Where did the wealth come from? By having a stable, democratic Government, a growing population and a lot of country with a lot of natural resources, our economy grew. Australian firms weren’t taking anything off anyone else; they were in the right place at the right time to make money.

I won’t comment on race related issues; my own country’s track record is rather poor in that regard anyway.

Now, back to gun control.

Is a welfare state the best way to fight crime? I honestly don’t know. To answer that, I’d need statistics, facts, and figures, comparisons between welfare and enabling states, and information about motives for crime. If we found it was so, we’d then have to consider if the benefits of a safe society outweigh the costs of a welfare state.

But the socio-economic issues behind (gun) crime are interesting to consider.

Lord_Morningstar - I'm obviously not dishing having a product priced according to value added to it, as in your baker example. I angled against exploitation and exploitation only. I know how a free economy, a stable, democratic government and such work. We have that too, now Natural resources too - South Africa is not poor in natural resources - gold, diamonds, steel, coal, platinum ( the bulk of the world's platinum in fact ) etc.

But we still, by and large, manufacture Australia's cars so you can have them cheaper

I really dont' like a welfare state as a solution. I'm of the "They as don't work, don't eat" school of thought. I really don't like welfare as a concept, actually. Sure some people really need it, through disability or to get them back on their feet, but a welfare state? Please no.

I look at myself. I own property, which gives me a stake in my country. Meaning, I want my country safe, my property to be a steady growing investment, and also a place I can relax in at the end of a productive day being a cog in the machine of the economy. I have a car, I pay taxes to keep the roads, etc that I use. I have stakes in all of this, it works for me to have the structures stable. I have no incentive to crime. That would be risking what I have.

I look at an unemployed person. No real stake in whether the country is stable and safe or not, see. Doesn't own property, doesn't get a sense of contentment and worth from forming part of the economy. Crime seems like the only way to get things. Maslow's pyramid is not being met. There is no "risk" in crime because there is nothing to lose, really. Life, maybe - unless he/she shoots first. Rather dangerous.

I look at a person on welfare. No real stake in the country EITHER. Doesn't provide input, doesn't get the feeling of ownership that comes with helping to make something work. A criminal risk? Perhaps not, but this person doesn't help the economy grow.

And that is the fool's paradise I live in. Reducing the numbers of the have-nots as a long-term solution to crime. That means growing the economy, so the unemployed can become employed, etc etc. Simply putting them on welfare strains the economy, I think. Is counter-productive.

It is not easy, and I personally rather like the capitalist economy model - work, give input, and receive reward for your honest work. Problem is the dishonest, those playing the system, and the super-rich with a half dozen Ferrari's in the garage, one for every day and the limo for Sundays. One person slurping up the living wage of a couple thousand workers, often not for doing work that justifies such wealth aquisition. Perhaps investing in a reduction of crime as a different sort of wealth instead of aquisition of physical wealth would improve their lifestyle by removing the need for barbed wire on the garden walls.

I don't know, I just like to play with these ideas. As Lord_Morningstar said, examining socio-economic issues are interesting. I'm however a computer programmer by trade, have zero socio-economic education

Alatar - Thanks!

As I've said, I don't know any simple cures to confronting crime especially in one's own home. Guns are more dangerous to the owners and those close to them. I don't know the mechanics of pepper spray but what are the risks of disabling the user at the same time? As has been said an attack on the intruder risks simultaneously raising the violence threshold and causing an anger/defence reaction to the disadvantage of the resident. You either have the opportunity to take hold of a weapon, realtively rare, or you don't. If you don't which seems the most likely you are reliant on your wits and attitude. If you suffer physical attack it would be best to know strategies of effective unarmed response. I am not an expert on them but others are. Perhaps police or victim support bodies can give useful advice on where to find out. If there is time to get to a weapon then the discussion about which is best is likely to be varied. I would still go for some variety of short cosh. The vast majority of criminals want easy targets with no problems. Give them a persuasive problem and they are likely to remember a previous appointment.

Fire extinguishers sound quite effective against dogs or spiders but a full grown man? Unless you club him over the head with it.

Giffon64 wrote:

And that is the fool's paradise I live in. Reducing the numbers of the have-nots as a long-term solution to crime. That means growing the economy, so the unemployed can become employed, etc etc. Simply putting them on welfare strains the economy, I think. Is counter-productive.

My thoughts on this matter exactly. I think that urban and regional renewal and development and public education programs are helpful, in both making life better for people and increasing the chances of long-term economic growth, but I am opposed to the Social Democratic welfare state because I believe that it is very inefficient and requires very significant economic growth 5%+ to sustain it.

Well, one tactic might be to instigate a socio-economic discussion with the intruder and bore him to death.