Very rare indeed, jamo? ITYF they're far more common than what happened in Sydney!

Carrying a pistol is a nuisance; in the days of leather shoulder holsters one had to have dedicated white shirts that one only wore with a jacket because of the stains from the holster.
When I first carried I wore a front draw shoulder holster but because of the shirt issue and the fact that one could not take the coat off if the weather turned hot, made me opt for a cross draw belt holster; on hot days the pistol could be concealed by the coat across the left arm.

However as I possess the right under our laws to protect myself from unlawful attack then I also possess the right to have some means of protection, but that right, if exercised, will make me a criminal.

I'm now 80+ years old so don't stand much chance against a 20 yo attacker but my ever loving Government and the Greens say that I shouldn't possess anything for the purpose of self defence.

Indeed Is Mise.

Comes down to whether you prefer to be judged by twelve or carried by six.

Damned if you do and dead if you don't. Better to be damned and alive than the other option.

Dear Aidan,

I'm not really keen on democracy, but since you asked, let me explain why Australia isn't democratic:

The basic idea of democracy is "one man, one vote". Originally, all 5000 citizens met in the town-square and wrote their selections on each given issue on ceramic shards, which were then collected and counted and each issue was decided by the majority.

As the number of citizens grew (but before the advent of the internet), it became impractical to gather all citizens and so representative-democracy was invented. This is a step down from democracy, but OK, at least everyone has someone to represent them in the assembly.

But is this the case in Australia? While we don't get to vote on the issues in person, can we at least appoint someone to represent us in parliament? Certainly not! People cannot send their representatives - only electoral districts can, which are an arbitrary collection of people that cannot even be chosen by the citizens themselves.

According to the Australian electoral system, representatives may only represent ONE electoral district, so if the only candidate whose views are similar to mine happens to be a candidate of another district, then I am left with no one to represent me.

Thus, the division into electoral districts perpetuate the two-party system, none of which is likely to represent more than a handful of citizens. Nobody else has a real practical chance to be voted. Such a choice is akin to being "freely" allowed to decide whether to shop in Coles or in Woolworth.

Moreover, if I happen to live in a "marginal" district, then my vote has a small chance to be effective, but my neighbour across the street may happen to live in another district which is "safe", thus their vote is worthless. Can you call this "one man, one vote"?

The Roman democracy was obviously faulty because women and slaves could not vote, but also because only men who owned property could vote. In Australia, it is only people who own (or rent) property in the "right" districts who can effectively vote.

Dear Aidan,

<<Because it occurs in Australia. If it occurred in Denmark than it would be the Danish government's business; in Russia the Russian government's business, etc.>>

And the logic is?

If the Australian government knows best about what's good for children, better than their parents and better than the Russian government, then it should know what's best for ALL children, wherever they are, but if the Danish government knows better, then shouldn't they be the ones to make that determination?

With such logic, why not for example, should it be the business of those whose eye-colour is the same as the child's?

Fortunately you explained your logic in the next sentence, when I asked "Why not Google"?

You answered:

<<They're free to try to make it their business if they want, but they do not and never will have the power to enforce laws.>>

Now the cat is out of the bag: governments make it their business to control other people's children for the sole reason that they have power. They have the guns, so they do and dictate what they want. I have just written about Mafia and bullying and you have fully confirmed it.

Yuyutsu,

<<Now the cat is out of the bag: governments make it their business to control other people's children for the sole reason that they have power. They have the guns, so they do and dictate what they want. I have just written about Mafia and bullying and you have fully confirmed it.>>
Governments have the power because the people have given it to them. You might think other people's children dying from easily preventable actions done in pursuit of totally illusory benefits is preferable to governments having the power, but fortunately most people do not share your evil indifference.

It's time to demolish your ivory tower and return to the real world!