Lexi,

LOL, I didn't have long to wait for you to scour the Net to find something, anything that suited your prejudice.

Now you and I both know from so many threads before that university research that has been properly peer reviewed cannot show any evidence of any benefit at all from the mountain of bureaucracy the Howard 'initiatives' foisted on police and law-abiding licensed firearms owners.

Sad but true it is criminals, most likely ethnic drug gangs and their illegally held gangsta guns who are committing the gun crime in Australia. That is where much os the violence is coming from too. From booze and the usual suspects too. Houses is a fair representation of a certain culture you must find appealing.

But trust you to continue in the same old Green Left rut as before: soft on criminals and drugs, and desperately trying to lay blame elsewhere.

What a joke and an insult though. The ones you choose to sledge and blame, the law-abiding licensed owners, are the ones who sail through every police check of character to obtain and maintain their licence. Yet their critics such as yourself have never had to satisfied a similar test of their character and uminpeachable status as a law-abiding citizen. These are the same critics who are also trenchant critics of police when they are trying to do their job.

With police being overloaded with the bureaucratic paperwork of political correctness and Courts being soft on criminals, we never kno who is moving into out suburbs. I repeat what I said before to you:

"These respectable folk (licensed owners) must wonder if their trenchant critics such as yourself who constantly excuse criminal behaviour, offering such weak indensible excuses that society made them do it, have always had good regard for the law themselves. Well, do you and what evidence can you supply that you are a good trustworthy neighbour for those who live around you?"

My "Houses is a fair representation of a certain culture you must find appealing" in para 3 above should be,

"Housos is a fair.. etc"

Many police can't watch it of course, it is too close to the sad stuffed-up reality that confronts them every day. Courtesy of looney 'Progressive' Left policies.

Yuyutsu,
The operative word is reasonability. Unfortunately there is a gulf between what a policeman perceives as reasonable and what the citizen does.

What many do-gooders do not consider is the anger that comes with an assault or an intrusion. This anger can make a victim act irrational in the heat of the moment when the victim only has a split second to decide on what action to take. The offender who has watched your movements & planned to either attack or rob you has had time to think about how to to go about their decision to attack or rob. The victim does not have that luxury yet when a victim reacts in a perfectly understandable manner i.e. hit back or shoot the offender then our idiot Law persecutes the defender. Rights in prison ? Of course for the offender but none for the victim. Can anyone throw light on any outcome where a victim has been compensated for a burglary or assault ?

Individual,

All you have to do is Google the "victimsofcrime"
websites. There's enough information on the web
to provide you with what you're looking for.

Alternatively, the larger regional libraries have
as part of their reference collections Law Handbooks
that will give you assistance with legal problems.
There's chapters on victims of crime and compensation,
et cetera. Crimes are offenses that are regulated by
state laws - and there are many compensation programs
available that help victims to heal.

What the serially interfering 'Progressives' have done is forget the rights of the law-abiding, vulnerable victim. The 'Progressives' have concentrated on rights for criminals because they are soft on crime.

They have reversed the onus of proof and now it is the victim who is obliged to defend his act in self-defense. It makes it certain that defence of oneself and loved ones will result in detention, interrogation and serious charges.

The victim has to prove that s/he feared imminent serious harm or death and prove that s/he used the exact amount of 'reasonable' force to restrain the assailant. The Police and the Police Prosecutor are actively looking for ways to charge the victim and go to extremes to do just that.

The media too takes up the hue and cry for revenge on the homeowner who hurt the home invader whose 'alleged but not proved' nastiness was doubtless due to 'childhood disadvantage'. He was misunderstood, though he had a screwdriver or wrecking bar in hand and a lifetime of belting the bejesus out of anyone who got in his road. That sad reality for homeowners is evidenced by recent cases in NSW where citizens who defended themselves were themselves treated as criminals by police and the media published photos of them and their houses, with Google Earth images of the streets that could identify their addresses.

Of course it is not surprising that the Chardonnay quaffing elite, the self-styled 'Progressives' might side with criminals, where so many of them and their friends use illegal recreational drugs. No wonder the 'Progressives' are all for understanding and empathising with misunderstood criminals and are opposed to custodial sentences. Their risktaking might one day result in arrest!

However, if it were not for the windfall profits from supplying recreational drugs to these middle class educated professionals with money to spill, the ethnic drug gangs would be starved for money. They wouldn't be taking over bikie clubs and they wouldn't be having turf wars with their imported illegal gangsta guns either.

to be continued..