Arjay, "Why not a weapon that merely disables your assailant?"

Assuming you live outside of NSW, if you do that and injure the home invader in any way, you will certainly be arrested yourself and will be required to demonstrate to a court under the reversed standard of proof that was introduced by the political 'Progressives' to protect offenders' rights and welfare while they are on the job.

In NSW the grossly unfair reversed standard of proof has been withdrawn*, but police (and the shameful media) still do this to homeowners who have defended themselves against an assailant, (Donald Brooke example)

http://www.protectionist.net/2011/09/27/protecting-your-property-against-home-invaders/

At last police and the media leave Brooke in (relative) peace,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/no-charges-for-donald-brooke-who-fatally-stabbed-home-invader-azzam-naboulsi/story-e6frg6o6-1226242200976?nk=e1da8a49145333ea622254672441c714

You are expected to be totally unprepared and defenceless, with a lucky break being the only possibility to preserve your life against cowardly assailants. See here,

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/no-mercy-elderly-man-fights-off-intruders-20121111-296dg.html

Hasbeen,

Be aware that as a Queenslander, where the reversed standard of proof still applies, your chosen means of defence and your admission on this forum could put you in goal if you happen to threaten or harm some offender who is intent upon robbing you.

*The reversed standard of proof applies in all Australian jurisdictions except NSW where the Shooters and Fishers Party recently had the disgusting provision removed from the Statute books.

Quote: "Legally, Australians have a right to self-defence. What we don't have is the practical ability to exercise that right." Wrong.

The article then says: "Owning any object for the purpose of self-defence, lethal or non-lethal, is a criminal offence." I disagree.

People have body parts. Some may argue they are owned by the individual - others may have different opinions of no ownership at all or another point of view. However the article asserts that "we" need to have a physical man made item to protect ourselves when we may or do not.

One only has to look at various forms of wrestling for example, some which have lasted for several centuries, sending a very basic message that people as individuals can take action re their own protection. This then limits the need for later period weapons of all types.

One example of this is Cornish wrestling or 'Omdowl Kernewek' in the Cornish language. The objective of Cornish wrestling is to throw your opponent and make him or her land as flat as possible on their back. Cornish wrestling (I've seen it - and it is "full on") and Martial arts could be a way to take action in an environment of insecurity - without a need or feeling to hold "full on" weapons (of any type) in Australia in 2014.

Nathan J,

How does that help the elderly or the women alone at home with the children against an assailant? Remembering that the assailant is practiced at his work, has thought things through and will always have the element of surprise and timing on his side?

o sung wu,

As you and Is Mise would know, the concern is always not to have 'over-penetration' and carry that could injure others.

If a person were ever to use a shotgun for home defence (and remembering that close confines are problematical for a long barrel), the choice would be the lightweight .410 firing BBs. Two barrels are sufficient.

Women pioneers used a .410 for thieving birds in the garden to foxes in the hen house. No problems with two legged pests if ever needed, the No4 shot or next barrel the BBs are adequate to deter.

Remember however that the leftist 'Progressives', who value a criminal's welfare and rights above the homeowners, have inserted the reversed standard of proof that (outside of NSW) could see the woman who defends herself facing serious charges. The stereotyping of women as defenceless victims could eventually protect her when she faces a jury.

That brings me to the point that is usually forgotten in these discussions, that the business of maiming and killing by offenders is usually done with blunt weapons, eg baseball bat. It is easily hidden, quiet, sudden and effective. In view of that, it is amazing how many bleeding heart 'do-gooders' exclaim, "Oh, but the offender was 'only'[sic] armed with a steel bar", ignorant that blunt trauma is the most common cause of death by far.

Onthebeach,

Senator David Leyonhjelm, said "Legally, Australians have a right to self-defence. What we don't have is the practical ability to exercise that right and owning any object for the purpose of self-defence, lethal or non-lethal, is a criminal offence."

The senators introduction provided no legal facts to back his case and in fact they were totally baseless. I simply provided a rebuttal to that - Cornish wrestling. Since its introduction being a sport, it is a very good way of protecting an individual from violent behaviour, with no need for a physical item for protection - but can the Senator in question guarantee that with man made items for personal protection our community will be 100% safe? No he cannot. Neither would Cornish wrestling. See the connection?

We all have natural actions and elements that can protect us in some form - and to send a message that we do not is verging on irresponsible.

If a person who is elderly or not and is facing an extreme situation and feels uncomfortable, do your best to use your 'fingers' (another natural element) and dial 000. I know it sounds boring or not like a five star hollywood film, but we have a very good emergency services team throughout most parts of Australia and we should recognise that - and no, not all assailants are well practiced at their work.

Do grow up Nathan, & stop talking garbage.

I was trained in all forms of unarmed combat, but that was 54 years ago. Armstrong defence is no longer an option.

Yes onthebeach, I was advised by the local Sargent of police, in a country town many years ago, to not even consider injuring an intruder. He reckoned I would end up having to sell the property to pay the compensation some idiot judge would award them.

No, his advice was to shoot the intruder between the eyes, making sure they were very dead. This way they could not spin a yarn, or claim innocence to said idiot judge. I should then refuse to answer any questions, until a good lawyer had told me exactly what to say.

Now I doubt my ability to follow such advice with a hunting bow, but as mentioned, I do get wobbly when trying to hold a drawn bow, so accidents could happen if I was showing one to an unwelcome intruder..

Again I'm sure that advice about shutting up, until after talking to a good/bad lawyer would still be useful.

It should not surprise too many that more than one uninvited person entering my property would lead to me suddenly having to clean my hunting bow, or having my large dog beside me at the door.

Nathan J,

Yes, you may defend yourself. Then you will very likely be arrested if you harmed the offender, and of course the offender may also bring claims for compensation against you as well.

Bit rough some might say, where the brute undertook a planned home invasion and threatened you with a gun, machete or baseball bat, but you reached for your iron fire poker left beside the bed for that purpose and clouted him with it. The police later alleged it was by definition a weapon since you had it there for the purpose and admitted that to them. The kitchen knife could also be a weapon and your Leatherman of course.

It is defend yourself if you dare because you will then be re-victimised by being placed in a cell, interrogated by police who want a conviction and charged. After your reputation has been trashed, job prospects affected and your home sold to pay for your defence, you might rue the day you thought you could defend yourself.

Have a look at Crimes Amendment (Self-Defence) Bill, NSW, which removed the onus that is placed upon YOU as the victim of an attack to prove later in a court that yes you did fear harm and the means of escape was denied and so on. The change rightly put the onus back on the prosecution to disprove self-defence beyond all reasonable doubt. That is eminently reasonable, wouldn't you say?

You say that victims should use their fingers and call police. Frankly, even if you could get that call in, it is highly unlikely the police will arrive to save the day. If you think about it you should soon realise why.