So if people had the right to bear concealed weapons, would criminals stop conducting criminal actions?

Or would they simply arm themselves better than the average citizen could do?

How do you square this

http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/bocsar/documents/pdf/bb82v1pdf.pdf

With a need for concealed weapons?

Personally I'd not like to see the general adult population carry a weapon of any description, particularly not in a public street or place. There are enough drunks and other lunatics roaming around the streets as it is, imagine if many of them were armed ? Inebriated and carrying a gun, a perfect formula for serious injury or death ?

The coppers have more than enough to contend with without this ? There'd be more shootings then one could imagine. Give some people a firearm, and you create a pathological monster. Turn an ordinary mild man into a formidable fiend, who in his own limited thinking, had no equal, save another with a gun ! There'd be routine killings over minor issues; a parking space, road rage, or giving someone a malevolent look even ?

Citizens of Australia have a right to defend themselves against unlawful attack, be it from a human, a savage dog or other animals.

Who thinks that it should remain unlawful for a person to carry a stick to defend themselves against a dog, or for a person in pig infested country to carry a gun for defence against feral pigs?

'Who thinks that it should remain unlawful for a person to carry a stick to defend themselves against a dog, or for a person in pig infested country to carry a gun for defence against feral pigs?'

people who think animals are on the same level as humans. One Restuarant owner in Canberra (where else and most than likely a Greens voter) refused to kill cockraoches recently.

Gun-nuts invariably wail "look at Switzerland" when gun control is mentioned.

I wonder if they ever bother to find out what they are talking about:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912

"All healthy Swiss men aged between 18 and 34 are obliged to do military service and all are issued with assault rifles or pistols which they are supposed to keep at home"

Ah. So they are issued by the military, for military purposes, and all owners are trained by the miltary.

Not sold in supermarkets or ordered online, then.

Also, they are all licensed, and the licensing is taken seriously, unlike the US, where...

"Individuals with misdemeanor convictions (including for violent offenses) can legally buy guns and obtain permits to carry concealed handguns.
Those obtaining concealed handgun permits are not required to demonstrate any specific need (or threat) to carry a weapon in public.
Law enforcement officials have no individual discretion in denying gun purchases or concealed handgun permits.
Private sales/transfers of firearms are completely unregulated, with no background checks or paperwork required.
Only a handful of states require licensing and registration, and typically just for handguns."

"It is no surprise that the United States has an astronomically higher gun death rate than any other industrialized democracy. The critical concept of civic duty—which is such a central element of Switzerland’s gun culture—has been eviscerated in the United States over time by the gun lobby."

http://csgv2.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/truth-about-guns-in-switzerland.html

Or as this blogger puts it:

"In reality, and perhaps ironically, and to the chagrin of the NRA, Switzerland is a fine model for the intent of the American Constitution's 2nd Amendment. They have a well-regulated militia instead of a standing army. They have universal background checks and universal licensing. They require firearm training before a gun can be owned. They have near total restrictions on the purchase and use of ammunition. In fact, they regulate and restrict much more than America does. Interesting."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/28/1190586/-Some-Truth-About-Switzerland-and-Guns

(There is also massive irony in the fact that the bankers of Switzerland wouldn't allow their country to fight anyway. It would be very bad for the historically incredibly lucrative business of "neutrality".)

G'day IS MISE...

I'm in total agreement with everything you've said herein. It is our right to defend ourselves against a violent attack, whether it's from an animal or human.

If it were you applying for a F/A licence for the purpose of reducing risk when on foot in feral pig country, and I was the licensing sergeant, you'd walk out with it in two minutes. Given your military background, advanced training, age and level of social maturity, you'd not represent any risk whatsoever to the public !

BUT, there are not as many IS MISES' (is the comma in the right place?) out there in the community as we'd like, and you know as well as I do, there are some you'd not trust with a water pistol lest it's filled with ammonia or some irritant concoction. Believe it or not, some years ago government were so concerned with the number of incidences of 'adults' with water pistols assaulting people with some nasty substances loaded therein ?

They were considering amending the F/A Regs (offensive weapons) to the extent, a person caught with such an item in their possession needed to prove; (i) they had the thing for a lawful purpose; and (ii) they intended to use it, in a lawful manner ? As an example, if a bloke were spoken to at 1.00am outside a popular night-spot, and he had a water pistol in his possession...well he needed to be 'pretty quick on his feet' to convince the coppers, the thing was being carried lawfully, and of course the average dope couldn't !

IS MISE, we've got some very, very, very, 'extraordinarily' stupid people out there, in this wonderful City of Sydney, you can believe me ! It's for this reason my good friend, the F/A laws MUST remain tight, for OUR protection !