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.

I can see why this fool was a failure as a law maker! For Christ's sake, who knows what Christ said, or did not say at the Last Supper. Who knows even if there was a Last Supper, or was there even a Christ for that matter, to have a Last Supper!

What's the world coming to, a bloke can even carry a couple of hand grenades, or a personal machine gun, to take care of that bloody Check-Out Chick who overcharged for a pack of Tinty-Taters!

"They're a $1.99 on the SHELF BITCH! not $2.99, COP THIS BITCH! BANG BANG BANG!

"The world used to be so peaceful, until they started overcharging at the supermarket!"... "Self defence your honour". "Quite so Young Paul, self defence, quite understandable, I'd do the same thing myself, if being overcharged like that."...."Sorry about the collateral damage, that old lady, and the school kid, not to mention the mother and baby...sh!t happens." hummmmmmmmmmmm!

Bonger.

Settle down Tiger.

Shuffle out the back and pull off a couple of cones, and calm yourself down, before the riot squad arrive.

There bored at the moment, you could be in deep trouble, all the rif-raf have moved south outa Byron.

Hi Nuremberg Dan,

Ya gotta laugh sometimes, I don't take this site too serious, not with the general level of posts being what they are, including yours and mine. This article is no exception, if you have to invoke the words of Jesus ant the Last Supper, then you have a rather poor argument.

The old Dodge City argument is so full of holes, even more than the losing gunfighter in a Dodge City shoot out, its so laughable.

BTW Dan, how are the torch light precessions going these days? Will you be a candidate for Fat Clive's Trumpster Party at the May election? They need people of your rare talent to represent them. My forum buddy mhaze has already signed up, so I believe, what about you.

Bomger 1405

“ what about you?”

Well, I’m not into promoting the peddling of noxious drugs, like our old mate here, “The Dave”.

And I’m happy to expose his abysmal and failed attempts at subtlety.

Dave should do the “ honest” thing, stump up now and declare his hand.

His perpetual violin music is off key and out of tune with modern day standards of a drug free society, especially among his credentialed elite of the political class…Ho, F* Ho.

I’m all for drug testing Politicians on a regular random basis, in order to achieve a sane and educated outcome from Canberra.

I realise though, this message may not be popular in Nimbin.

My apologies Bonger!

Hi DD,

No need to apologise, all good, sorry about the people in Nimbin, glad I'm in Brisbane. Let me stereotype and extrapolate for a second; All people in Byron take illegal drugs, you Dan are in Byron, therefore you must take illegal drugs, sounds very reasonable don't you think? Prohibition of addictive substances has never worked. We could have a long discussion about the reasons why, but the evidence is clear for all to see. As for a call for self defence through gun ownership etc, I call that the thought bubbles of fruitcakes, like the bloke who wrote the article.

Bonger.

Yep, we like our suburb clean and free of noxious drugs and the homeless losers; AKA backpackers.
Glad they’ve moved south.
Glad you’re happy Nirtwards.
QLD was a great and glorious State when Joh and flow shared around the pumpkin scones and donated their faded curtains to the opp-shop….and…and, not forgetting their generous hand-outs to Russ Hinz and his gambling addiction…And his expulsion of homosexual schoolteachers into exile in the greater State of NSW.

Blessed were the days Bonger!

Hi me ole'cock Dan,

Yes, those were the day my friend. Yep Joh For PM, in fact I think Joh would make a better PM today than he would have back then, he has the right credentials these days, having been dead for 20 years! I always thought if only we had snorted a few more of Flo's pumpkin scones the world would have been a better place, maybe not for us, but for future generations of scone snorters! In all the argy-bargy of todays politics no one mentions pumpkin scones, mores the pity!

let's try to stay on topic.
Yuyutsu,
The topic is self defence so, bringing up scenario that cause the need for self defence is actually not straying from the topic, it's right in the middle of it.

Dear Indyvidual,

«The topic is self defence so, bringing up scenario that cause the need for self defence is actually not straying from the topic, it's right in the middle of it.»

But you did not bring up any scenario, only a possible culprit for unspecified violence.

I only mentioned "lawyers" in passing:

{That "We have a right to self-defence" is a legal question and lawyers are best placed to answer it}

What I said, essentially, is that this (i.e. the legal side) is a lesser-important aspect of the topic, a trivial aspect that can therefore be left for the lawyers to determine, not something that really ought to interest us here.

To which you responded:

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

Does this mean that you wish to discuss the philosophical question of whether or not we ought to defend ourselves against lawyers, separate to the general question of whether or not we ought to defend ourselves in general?

Is there a substantial reason to deal with violence by lawyers any different to violence in general?

Yuyutsu,
Lawyers are totally divorced from Justice as is Law. More often than not lawyers & the Law actually create more problems than they solve simply because morale & Justice are only a tiny, occasional part of their repertoire !
Innocent people get charged & persecuted whilst the guilty are absolved of responsibility towards their victims & that directly equates to denial of self defence.

Dear Indyvidual,

«Innocent people get charged & persecuted whilst the guilty are absolved of responsibility towards their victims & that directly equates to denial of self defence.»

Then this example describes a situation where one has attempted to defend themselves, but failed.

This happens in nature too, a lot, the weak trying to defend themselves unsuccessfully while the strong wins what is not theirs - but the example does not address the present topic of whether one should even attempt at self-defence in the first place, on whether that is right or wrong.

Then this example describes a situation where one has attempted to defend themselves, but failed.
Yuyutsu,
You'd have to be a lawyer to come up with the translation above. Why else would you choose to ignore the many wrongs due to Law & Judiciary ?

Dear Indyvidual,

«Why else would you choose to ignore the many wrongs due to Law & Judiciary ?»

Because they are not directly related to this topic.