Dave and his tobacco lobby, still at it.

Tobacco is evil Dave. Tobacco addiction has an equivalence to heroine dependence.

Thirty percent of Heroin addicts can quit cold turkey along with the same thirty percent able to divorce themselves from nicotine addiction.

Why anybody would push the tobacco industry barrel is beyond me!

And the true nature of machete wielding gangs in Melbourne is well enough known: North African misfits , and they neither preference tobacco trading as a reason for their use of machetes as a preferred weapon, anymore than the fact machete wielding violent crime is in their blood, and part of their overall black misfit culture!

Self defence is an acceptable human behaviour.

It is not to be condemned, it is not something to ban or practically ban (as the author observes),
yet it is not something to be proud of, nor a noble example for others to follow.

As noted by Cicero, animals do it.
As exemplified by Jesus, saints do not.
And we are somewhere in between on this axis, somewhere between beasts and saints.

The Catechism's approach to self defence seems balanced, the Talmud's no as much.

We have a right to self-defence, but we do not have a right to carry weapons in case we might want to use them in self-defence. Criminals may not care much about laws restricting the use of weapons. But where such laws exist, weapons are far less prevalent, harder to come by and less likely to be carried by criminals. It is also easier for police to control violent criminals when there is no ambiguity about whether carrying a weapon is done legally or with innocent intent.

The innocent are much, much more likely to suffer violent attacks and death by criminals using weapons in societies where those weapons are legally and freely available, than in societies where they are restricted. In 2017 the USA had an estimated 120.5 firearms per 100 people. Australia had 14.5. In the same year the USA recorded 3.342 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 population. Australia recorded 0.094.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_homicide_rates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country

Since Australia restricted gun ownership in the aftermath of the Port Artur massacre in 1996, the rate of gun deaths per 100,000 people has fallen from 2.9 to 0.9.
http://www.gunsafetyalliance.org.au/the-stats/#:~:text=Firearm%20deaths,about%2010.6%20per%20100%2C000%20people.

The argument that “the elderly, disabled and women are particularly vulnerable” is especially disingenuous. The chances of an elderly disabled woman with a machete fighting off a fit young attacker are virtually zero.

I agree with much small-“l” liberal political philosophy, which places great weight on the rights and freedoms of the individual. But this is a case where libertarianism pushes the principle too far, asserting the individual’s right to do as they please even if the consequences for society as a whole are clearly very damaging.

Dear Rhian,

Language can be ambiguous:
"Right" can mean both the opposite of "wrong" and "a privilege given by some authority".

That "We have a right to self-defence" is a legal question and lawyers are best placed to answer it.
The more important and interesting question is, "Is it right to self-defend?", which is for philosophers to answer.

What when the answers differ?

The law is presumably equal to all (which BTW is a huge flaw), but what is right or wrong may differ between individuals (based mainly on their spiritual evolution): Jesus advised some to "buy a sword", others to "turn the other cheek".

---

Back to the article:

"Technically, Australians have a legal right of self-defence."

Not always - only when the attacker is an individual, not when attacked by the state itself or one of its agencies.

The biggest predator can do whatever they like because ultimately, the law of the jungle prevails.

lawyers are best placed to answer it.
Yuyutsu,
Aren't they the cause of much of the violence because they're totally not suited to societal problems ?

Dear Indyvidual,

«Aren't they the cause of much of the violence because they're totally not suited to societal problems ?»

The law itself is a form of violence: lawyers are not the cause, they just profit on the side.

Anyway, let's try to stay on topic.