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.