TRTL,

Can you tell me if there is any way that a slightly built woman can protect herself from a strong heavy man intent on rape or worse apart from dialling '000'?

Just found this during a 'Curiosity' visitto The Shooters Party site.

Aubrey John Sonnenberg
Newbie

Karma: +0/-0
[applaud] [smite]
Posts: 1

International competitive shooters
« on: 19 February 2007, 20:07:17 » (Quote)

I know everyone has their personal gripes re the anti-gun laws, this one is mine, and I'm not suggesting it's better than anyone else's:

I happen to compete in an international rifle discipline, which in the USA allows for self-loading rifles, and the vast majority of shooters compete in the self-loading rifle category. Obviously our gun laws prevent me from competing in the self loading category, because our Police ministers saw fit to decree that self loading rifles could not be used for target shooting. However, pistol and shotgun competitors are able to use self loading equipment for their local and international competitions.

Seems like rifle competitors are being unfairly discriminated against, as there is no justification given for why a self loading rifle is any more of a risk to society that a self-loading pistol or shotgun. This is quite apart from the fact that bona fide international competitors are a small and well defined group. The Police know who we are and where we live, and furthermore no one is suggesting that anyone be given access to these firearms, so what's the risk?

Cynically, the risk is that the politicians could not justify to the left wing why "assault rifles" are being allowed onto our streets, the normal lies and distortions. So it seems yet again that the law abiding majority are being held to ransonm by the spineless government on behalf of the left wing extremists.

Make sure you vote for the Shooters Party, this nonsense has to be stopped.
Aubrey (unquote)

This could be one of those funny arguments from 'the gun lobby'...whoever they are.

Is Mise, its called "mace", or pepper spray, or even a taser. Currently, there are a number of non-lethal means of defending oneself. Some legal, some not, why don't the proponents for "self-defence" of fragile little women try to lobby for those? Oh thats right, guns don't kill people, they just make someone feel more secure.

Is Mise
"Can you tell me if there is any way that a slightly built woman can protect herself from a strong heavy man intent on rape or worse apart from dialling '000'?"

See my response to a similar question you posted on another thread recently.

Is your question here a suggestion that you should be able to carry a gun in public places to protect yourself against a possible attack?

If so how do I protect myself against a nervous slightly built woman "packing heat" who decides that my early morning walk is actually a potential rape?

If guns are more accessable how does your gun in your handbag help you against the rapist who gets their gun out first?

If you are carrying a gun in an accessable location (and it's ready for use) how do you stop your child getting at it as a plaything (and if not yours then some other slightly built woman's child)?

My understanding is that carrying a weapon for self defence carries with it a high risk of it being used against you - the attacker is sure that they are an attacker, you can't be sure untill they have attacked by which time it may be too late.

Keeping weapons around for self defense carries a high risk that the person shot will be a family member or an innocent doing something a bit unusual at a time when the person carrying the gun is feeling unsettled.

R0bert

Is Mise: "TRTL,

Can you tell me if there is any way that a slightly built woman can protect herself from a strong heavy man intent on rape or worse apart from dialling '000'? "

Oh okay, nevermind, heck, just give em both guns. that'll sort the situation out.

You can claim it will allow her to defend herself.

I can just as easily argue it will allow him to shoot her. And anyone else he feels like.

The more guns = the easier they are to access = the more being used = more people shot.

I look at every country with lax gun laws and see they are all worse off. It is madness to advocate the introduction of more devices that are designed to kill people.

I think that most people in Australia will agree that carrying a gun for self defence is not really the way we would like to see our society run.

The real argument that the gun lobby has, is the sporting interests and business interests of gun owners. Yes, I smile when I see business interests now, but I dont mean drug-runners, I mean farmers. Using a rifle or a shotgun to dispatch injured animals, or to take out ferals should be quite legitimate. Shooting of ferals is certainly more humane than poison (which is the other alternative).

Other gun owners enjoy target shooting, and hunting (again, normally feral animals). Some seem to think these activities should be banned because they dont agree with them. Well, I dont like surfing or golf, but someone else can go ahead if that floats their boat.

If some people have a legitimate reason to own a gun (and sometimes large calibres are required - think shooting feral pigs happens with an air-rifle?), then let them have it. Licence them, require them to have storage standards and transportation standards and check up on them occasionally. Its those that arent prepared to licence their guns that I would be more worried about.