Agreed. In order to protect the population let the population take practical persuasions, and protect themselves. Mace and pepper spray are a small and practicals jeans of defense.

I wonder how many Australians feel like “defenceless victims”? I don’t. I’ll bet most of us don’t.

There is no ‘right’ to self defence. If you kill someone defending yourself, you will be subjected to a legal enquiry which will clear you - or not - of manslaughter. You could find yourself in jail. The use of ‘non-lethal weapons against a stronger, UNARMED assailant could see you charged with assault. Then there is the proportionate response guff.

“Only the police, it seems, have the right to practical self-defence…”. For heaven's sake man: police face physical danger everyday, protecting us. How often does an ordinary citizen get attacked for doing his job!

Don’t listen to politicians: particularly this rogue senator who can say anything he likes without responsibility. And just think about accidently upsetting some supersensitive madwoman and getting a blast of mace in your eyes.

Absolutely David. Especially if that harm is the result of untreated cancer.

Cancer is a deadly killer that, I'm informed, will in our lifetime impact on one in three of us?

Moreover, according to one reported oncologist, the main difference between benign cancer and malignancy is around a year!?

With death sentence brain cancer taking out more of us than the annual road toll! Ditto equally intractable ovarian cancer!

And usually, only symptomatic, when it's already too late. Unless or except where bismuth 213 is used as the last gasp line of defence or proven, WESTERN MEDICINE, miracle cancer cure!

And officially suppressed or prohibited by alleged, technology agnostic governments!?

Why?

Because of what it thorium (2 cents per KwH) could do to power prices and the sovereign risk in that.

Especially, one believes, for those ( coal-fired ) politicians standing shoulder to shoulder and foursquare against it!

THEIR OWN CONSIDERABLE ENERGY INVESTMENTS AT RISK?

Look, tell your friend, Sarah Hanson Young, that Bismuth, derived from carbon-free U233, which is, in turn, derived solely from carbon-free green energy, thorium.

That it alpha particle bismuth 213 was successfully trialled in various Europen cancer clinics, against (late-stage/regressed) ovarian cancer a long ago as 2006.

Somebody with the ear of the press gallery, needs to stand up and say so, preferably before another victim sails off for a holiday in the Mediterranian? An armful of Nembutal and a quiet death in their sleep?

Preferably before the same news goes viral?
Alan B.

I don't know how old you are ttbn, but at well past my 3 score years & 10, I am no longer capable of taking on successfully, a couple of assailants, & winning.

On a recent occasion I felt decidedly vulnerable at 10.30 PM on a major city railway station in Brisbane. From also recent experience I would not even consider being alone on many unmanned Sydney suburban railway stations at night.

I feel I should be entitled to legally defend myself with any weapon I choose to equal the odds.

In our modern powder puff society, where crims hold sway, & know they will never be properly punished, I would not be happy living in the country, a couple of hundred metres from the nearest neighbour, if I did not have a couple of large, one very protective & a bit aggressive, dogs.

For those worried & denied any protection, even a pressure pack paint can would be a moderate deterrent, & a can of "START YA BASTARD" loaded with ether as it is, would be even better. It may not be pepper spray, but it sure does make your eyes water & sting, if you catch a bit when using it on a recalcitrant engine.

Even with the best will in the world, the police can only ever respond to ever-increasing rimes of violence. And reactive and never ever proactive.

A criminal assault only takes seconds, police and ambo response times, take minutes!

The only exception is in our parliaments and for the politicians who craft our laws/forbid real self-protection for everyone else.

We should have a right to protect ourselves from armed intruders.

Even if their weapons are just their boots and knuckles, given one punch can and has killed.

People who step outside the law to willfully commit crimes of violence and theft! Shouldn't then be entitled to use that law to protect themselves from their intended victim.

I'm with David on this one and would include pump action shotguns loaded with non-lethal, bean bag ammunition. And equipped with a tactical torch.

Particularly if the intended victim is frail and aged!
Alan B.

Hasbeen,

I am 75 years old, and couldn’t fight my way out of a wet paper bag; but that wouldn’t be taken into account if I injured or killed an assailant with a recognised weapon. We are not entitled to defend ourselves with “any” weapon. You could probably get away with braining someone with a walking stick (if your assailant didn’t didn’t take it off you, then brain you) but when you start carrying something that is clearly a weapon you are asking for trouble.

I share the same frustrations as everybody else. I will always be on the side of the people protecting themselves, no matter what they do to creeps. But law and reality prevails, not always wisely. In the meantime, I will try to remember that I’m not what I used to be and avoid unnecessary risks.

Party swapper, Senator Fraser Anning, moved a motion that WOMEN (no mention of men) be allowed to carry pepper spray, mace and tasers. The motion was defeated 46-5. End of story. The way some hysterical women carry on these days, it wouldn’t be safe for men to go outside if the nutters were armed with any of those things.

Equally ridiculous was the suggestion from a Greens senator that women shouldn’t be asked to do anything about their safety, but ‘mens’ crimes’ should be looked at.

Having been so roundly defeated, the senator then decided, on 2GB, that women had a “God-given right’ to be protected - and, uh, men too.

Public debate and politics in this country has descended to pure bulldust.

The reality for all of us is that the so called 'bad guys' will continue to ignore the law, prey on the weak, remain opportunists and antagonists. Our laws unmistakably try to separate the 'civil' from the 'unruly'.
Personally, regardless of the law, the virtues of right and wrong, where humanly possible I would defend myself and those around me with whatever was available and deal with the consequences post.
I have seen it first hand where the offenders don't get any punishment for their crimes and this is where our government should be vastly improving legislation to truly deter crime in the first instance (this includes youth offenders and first timers - hit them hard and change their minds before they become an ongoing problem!).

ttbn better to be alive, in sound health, & in court facing charges, than dead or injured in hospital.

I think MPJ it is probably the cost of incarceration of convicted thugs that deter governments from passing suitable effective laws. They are more interested in using our money in pork barrel vote buying, than in spending it where it will protect us.

I an not interested in punishment, & definitely not interested in rehabilitation of thugs, I don't believe that is possible, I simply want them off the streets. Pity there are no new continents to deport our garbage to these days.

Outlawing guns was just phase 1.
Outlawing pepper sprays and the like was phase 2.

All this was in preparation for the ultimate phase: outlawing prayer.
For subjects need to feel helpless at all times and worship the state alone - the regime cannot afford such subversion that allows God into the country.

Government of the thieves, by the thieves, for the thieves!

---

Dear Hasbeen,

«ttbn better to be alive, in sound health, & in court facing charges, than dead or injured in hospital.»

I disagree: for honest people it is better to be dead than in jail. Got any cyanide pills to share, just in case?

Well besides Leyonhjelm being an absolute disgrace as a public representative the issue is an interesting one. Do we allow the means of quickly and efficiently incapacitating a person into the hands of the general public?

Stun guns are often used in rape and sexual assaults.

http://www.fox19.com/story/20278853/grand-jury-indicts-suspect-in-stun-gun-rape-of-college-student

http://nypost.com/2013/03/14/rape-suspect-used-taser-on-ex-girlfriend-before-slipping-it-past-airport-security-prosecutors/

http://www.dailypress.com/news/crime/dp-man-charged-with-abducting-raping-woman-in-newport-news-20160419-story.html

http://www.ajc.com/news/local/cops-teen-intruders-use-stun-guns-rape-gwinnett-mom-front-son/mhLfkVYWmoyL8yJwIb3t2N/

And this horrific case of a man stunning then kidnapping and 11 year old. He further used it to keep her 'in line' during years of rape and abuse.
http://www.newser.com/story/120089/garrido-used-taser-before-jaycee-rapes.html

Who is going to keep count of how many rapes are prevented by their use and how many are enabled?

ttbn,

"There is no ‘right’ to self defence"

There is a right to self defence and it is upheld by the Courts.

There is no legal right to possess anything for the purpose of self defence

However in NSW if one is genuinely in fear of one's life from an attacker then any means necessary to defend one's life is justifiable;
it is sufficient defence that one is in fear of one's life, it is up to the State to prove that one did not have that fear.

"NSW

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence.

(2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the person believes the conduct is necessary:

(a) to defend himself or herself or another person, or

(b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person, or

(c) to protect property from unlawful taking, destruction, damage or interference, or

(d) to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises or to remove a person committing any such criminal trespass,

and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them." (note: "...as he or she perceives them").
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/03/28/defend-home-intruder-australia_n_9559346.html

As far as walking sticks go they are a fearsome weapon and should never be discounted as a means of defence, but remember one must be of an age to need to carry one or else have an infirmity that justifies the carrying.

Of course, one may carry a walking stick or cane for vanity, but not for defence.

Sreele,

OK, we put up with the bashings, rapes and murders and deny any means of self defence; whatever turn you on.

Yuyutsu

Your a bloody scream...where do you get these ideas?

Dear Is Mise,

What a very revealing thing to say.

Your gun fetish has been a feature of this forum for a very long while. However it appears just talking about the topic leaves you aroused. Do you see yourself as some armed saviour coming to the rescue with your weapon fully cocked and loaded?

So does the thought of having the means of incapacitating women at will turn you on?

Clown.

Steele,

The self delusional is evident in your posts.

A few mock attacks on Judges & Magistrates & Legal aid people just to see how they react with less than a moment to think of what action to take wouldn't be out of place.

Steele,

You said, "Do we allow the means of quickly and efficiently incapacitating a person into the hands of the general public?"

We already do so, the walking stick and the umbrella are freely available and anyone may carry one.

Beware the person with a tightly furled umbrella.

Dear Is Mise,

Please tell me why you think a walking stick or an umbrella would have anywhere close to the incapacitating capabilities of a stun gun for an average person.

And here is a question for you. If there were more rapes conducted through the use of stun guns than those prevented would you change your mind about banning them?

Steele,

A walking stick and a man's umbrella are deadly weapons that can be used both for attack and defence, the umbrella is probably the better of the two as it will stop a sabre cut or more to the point, in today's world, a machete.
The walking stick is more handy for the parry or the counter stroke but the umbrella because of its slender foot is better for the thrust, particularly to the throat.
The "butt stroke" with a curved handle walking stick can easily dislocate or break the lower jaw.

As to your second question, No.
If the number of rapes exceeded the defensive use that would not be a reflection of the number deterred by the legality of the items.
Personally, I think that a pistol is far more effective a deterrent than a stun gun and does not need such proximity.

Is Mise, thank you.
I've been waiting for the right moment to jump in.
Read all the posts and as usual they cover a fair width of thoughts and ideas.
As I see it, the question of having the right to protect ourselves, is more than a right.
It's a given.
On what planet or universe does one come from to simply be OK with being attacked.
Being that I'm starting to call myself an 'oldie' these days, and as someone who feels like he's 100 years old, and looks it, I have always wrestled with this very topic.
I concluded that, anyone of a lesser physicality and agility like myself, does not/cannot/must not, get withing arms length of an attacker.
Thereby, I resolved, that as I am physically inept at any form of defense, I would need some form of 'eqauliser'. So if I am not to get within arms length of this miscreant, what options do I have?
They are;
Taser, cordless nail gun, spear gun and of course the good ol'e 'gun', obviously hand gun, easier to conceal.
Now let's have a look at these choices.
Taser, no problems here, probably at the top of the list.
Doesn't kill, although I believe it does, if the 'perp' has some underlying condition rendering him dead if tasered.
Cordless nail gun, hmmm, bit obvious maybe? So no not unless your being attacked while mending your wooden fence.
Spear gun, hmmm still even more obvious, unless you are standing very close to a body of water at the time, you might have trouble.
So no.
Now the one I like is the hand gun.
Easily concealed.
I am too old to fight, I'm too stubborn to just 'give them what they want'.
So as far as I am concerned, given the benefit of distance I can take it out, point it at him and then decide what to do.
My preferred option is to shoot him in the leg, thereby rendering him unable to run/walk off, let the law deal with him.

"Closing the gap"is best achieved by those who consider themselves disadvantaged by a gap, not by do-gooders mounting a gap industry. Best thing people not disadvantaged by a gap is lend a hand to those seeking to rise above the gap by their individual effort.

EJ, I love your candor.
The sad part is that these days people would rather take out their phones and film an attack, rather than try to stop it.
To be fair, I don't blame them.
Because today's miscreants are of a much more unpredictable and aggressive nature than in the past, you don't know what your getting yourself into.
Possibly death.
So it is that it takes a special kind of person to throw caution to the wind and risk his life for another.
I would be the first to dissuade someone to do so and encourage them to stand clear for fear I might end up with his life on my conscience.
The problem with a majority of these low lives we speak of, is that they are fearless.
As I have explained in the past there is only one course of action which will suffice.
The only deterant; DEATH.
Because sadly if he lives to be incarcerated or punished in any way, you are then in danger because at the very least he will keep on making your life a living hell, until, God forbid he eventually gets you.
More so as a show of power, in saying 'I'm in charge here, how dare you think your better than me'.
Over the years there have been stories reported of older couples bailed up in their bedroom, with the door locked and the old man holding a shotgun, whilst standing behind the locked door telling them to leave as he had a shotgun and would use it if he came any closer.
They kept attacking the door.
As the door began to give, the old man let fly a round.
I'm not sure but he definitely killed one of them.
It might have been both of them or the other got away.
I'm not sure.
The moron cops charged him with some shitey charge.
There was one hell of an outcry here, even I, who want nothing to do with stupid rallies was prepared to go to this one.
Suddenly, all charges were dropped.

There are actually pros and cons to this whole situation of self-defense scenarios which we can apply to our daily situations. Some would favor the idea but others oppose it simply because they are too afraid should the defense mechanisms fall into the wrong hands. It is true that some people could be taking advantage of the idea and misuse the self-defense prerogative during incidences that are not even near critical. Perhaps the percentage of non-threatening situations exceeds the latter and that is why majority of people feel there isn't a need for us to carry around weapons of self-defense.

ET, I disagree completely with your premise that 'most people' reject the use of weapons for self defense.
It does not do your stance well at all with such broad statements.
Be careful you have just joined the Sarah two dads camp.
I may seem pedantic but I am challenging you outright on your statement.
I am not part of this group you use to attempt to make your point.
The law is a useless entity.
It exists for it's own sake not for the community.
They are point scoreres.
There was the story of a woman who found an intruder in her house.
Not sure of the details whether she was in mortal danger or not.
Upon calling 911 she was told the police would attend as soon as a car was available.
She hung up very pissed off.
Then she had an idea.
She rang back and said, it's OK I've just shot him he's dead so no need to rush.
Within just a few minutes police cars, sirens blaring, came screaming to a halt outside her house.
They got the scumbag.
No, you can forget the law I have.
I don't want to be the one dead and the scum run off never to be caught just to do it again and again.
No I want the right to be safe and free of having to cross the road when a group of garbage comes towards me on the same footpath.
If I have to die at least it won't be a waste or in vain.
I hopefully left one of them critical or worse.

Here's just one of many:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbzeDxepasQ

and a pdf.

http://www.nycsteampunk.com/bartitsu/manuals/TheWalkingStickMethodOfSelfDefence1923.pdf

Issy, interesting video.
I think it might work well for a young, fit man such as he.
Now in my case, I would be lucky to lift the CANE, let alone do anything with it.
The secret to anything involving physical effort is fitness.
Unfortunately in my case I am well endowed with fatness.
No sane mature person would deny the elderly and physically impaired the right to have an edge on any assailant.
No the older I get the more I worry about this very fact.
Only two weeks ago, my brothers house was compromised by three scumbags at around two in the morning, while they slept and his two daughters were still awake.
Luckily they never came out of their rooms while they were rifling through the house.
That terrifies me.
More and more we are seeing scumbags taking control, both black and white.
I don't care who they are, I want them dead.
Just think if the elderly were allowed to carry concealed weapons, the scumbags will avoid you because they don't know if your 'carrying' or not and they can be stopped before they get anywhere near you.
If they are so arrogant as to gamble with their life then so be it.
They lose.
The beauty of my proposal is, just think how many people would have been spared, going forward, by the death of these bastards.
I say bastards because most of them are.

Altrav,

Don't sell yourself short, dexterity with the brolly can be useful at any age.

Study the pdf and look further on the net.