< I am not in favour of guns either just as I am not in favour of having no right to defend myself & what's mine or someone else I want to protect. I don't actually want a gun I just want the right to defend myself be that with a gun or with a crow bar.>

You cannot afford people the right to defend themselves and deny them the right to use a suitable weapon with which to do so.

That's why guns were invented in the first place. They are the great equaliser. A 70 year old man can and still has the ability to fend of multiple attackers when in the possession of a gun. A small framed, attractive woman can stand as tall as a would be attacker or multiples of.

To say that they can be used against us is a fallacious argument, they already are, and we are defenseless!

Why is our law enforcement allowed them but private law abiding citizens are not? Is the life of a law enforcer more important that that of a citizen?

Belly,
I agree with what you propose & I want to add that compensating the victim should be heading the list. How many times do we hear of peoples' lives ruined because of some spoiled adolescent vermin. There are whole families in despair yet all our magistrates & defence Lawyers do is focus on the rights of the culprit. I dare say some of these Law people are in fact worse than the culprits yet they enjoy the protection that should actually be afforded to the victim.
People get their computers stolen & therefore their life gets turned upside down whilst the thief gets free access to computers & possibly even tution in jail.
It really is a joke ha ha.

Just so that we can all appreciate the thoroughness of our Law makers, here is the relevant NSW legislation:

"FIREARMS ACT 1996 - SECT 4D

Special provisions relating to imitation firearms
4D Special provisions relating to imitation firearms

(1) This Act applies to an imitation firearm in the same way as it applies to a firearm, subject to the following:
(a) the Commissioner may not issue a licence authorising the possession or use of an imitation firearm (except to a firearms dealer) but may issue a permit authorising the possession or use of an imitation firearm,
(b) an imitation firearm is not required to be registered.
(2) For the purposes of the application (as provided by this section) of this Act to imitation firearms:
(a) an imitation firearm that is an imitation of a pistol is taken to be a pistol , and
(b) an imitation firearm that is an imitation of a prohibited firearm is taken to be a prohibited firearm.
(3) In this section,
"imitation firearm" means an object that, regardless of its colour, weight or composition or the presence or absence of any moveable parts, substantially duplicates in appearance a firearm but that is not a firearm.
(4) However, an imitation firearm does not include any such object that is produced and identified as a children’s toy ."

< http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fa1996102/s4d.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=toy%20and%20pistols >

As water pistols are children's toys then the Act does not SEEM to apply, however if apprehended with a toy pistol in suspicious circumstances then the toy becomes a pistol (in practice).

Some criminals have fitted their real pistols with the orange plastic muzzle piece (that OTB mentioned) or painted one on, as it gives them a split second edge as anyone opposing them may hesitate to fire at someone pointing a children's toy.

We are in good hands, so fear not.

Hi there RAWMUSTARD...

I'm sorry that I've disappointed you. In my own defence, I'm simply giving you the legal position in which everyone of us is required to abide by.

Your point that you've witnessed police remain seated in their car when confronted by a gang of idiots with baseball bats...it really doesn't surprise me either. Can I account for their apparent dereliction, no I can't.

I'm very sorry to hear of your son's savage bashing and your daughter being hounded by what you say, are an ethnic gang ?

Mate, I can't begin to tell you how many times I've heard stories similar to yours ? Do I care ? Bloody hell, cause I do ! Can I do anything about it ? No, I can't. We have a legal structure in this country, for better or worse, where it's necessary to prove a person or persons has committed a crime. The burden of proof belongs to the accuser, that's the police.

On the odd occasion the coppers 'rough up' some mug, there's hell to pay...allegations of police brutality - I've even been accused of that ON THIS VERY FORUM, RAWMUSTARD ! By some boofhead who wouldn't know me from Adam.

RAWMUSTARD, I 'feel' for everything that's happened to you and your family, and I'm dreadfully sorry if some of my former colleagues have apparently let you and your family members down.

Personally, it's only my opinion, I strongly believe our society, (Western Society) is heading for a complete 'Meltdown'. I believe our streets and public places, will be gradually taken over by marauding and predatory gangs. Gangs emanating from all demographics, and ethnicities. And for some inexplicable reason, governments can't or won't do a damn thing about it !

It is not surprising that avowed feministas and hoplophobes like Suseonline would be unconcerned about how a male, even an older male might save himself from being crippled, disfigured or killed by an assailant in his home.

The unmentioned elephant in the room is the gender bias in self defence, or offence for that matter where a wonderful womyn wants to rid herself of that troublesome man in her life, which could include a man said to be uninvited at the time, or doing 'unacceptable' things in her vicinity.

Feminism and a pre-existing favourable stereotype assist women to take whatever action they like against a male as long as they rehearse the story a bit, and their sensitive, vulnerable flower status excuses some inexactitude in the story. Women can be expected to get emotional when sinking the Dexter Russell to the maker's name in the 'bastard's' neck and they might not remember things right. There are good enough stories already available on the Net for the fragile flower to lay in wait with a suitable pig gutting calibre for the claimed noxious husband to return from his day's labour.

It is one of those things that was once unheard of, but in recent decades suddenly battered wives found that there was a way. See here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_woman_defense

Not defending the man if indeed he was a savage, unrelenting abuser. Just noting a difference in treatment: a woman can lay in wait with her weapon of choice for a known or unknown assailant or possible assailant, whereas a man who is suddenly confronted in his own home by an assailant with a wrecking bar or knife and injures the assailant while defending himself and loved ones will be charged and (outside of NSW) is likely to spend a long time in the slammer.

BTW, another difference is that the woman will get free legal support while the man will pay tens of thousands and even if acquitted will get nothing back.

Men, it sucks but you are on your own. Guess you already knew that.

OTB,
Yes indeed, women are the least likely to be victims of violence by a long mark yet they get the most funding and sympathy.
I always like to give the contrasting examples of the murders of Luke Mitchell and Jill Meagher.
Both people were innocent victims who died within a block of each other, late at night, though in different years.
An estimated 30,000 people marched down Sydney Rd in rememberance of Mrs Meagher and in solidarity with other female victims of violence.
I went to the rally organised by Steve Medhurst which sought to draw attention to violence against young men and at which Luke Mitchell's brother and others who'd lost young men spoke about their experience.
I'd estimate that there were about 60 people there on the steps of parliament house, even though it was promoted on 3AW, Ten News and ABC radio.
The Age is reporting that on new year's eve Sydney Hospitals admitted an average of two people an hour who'd been king hit or knocked unconscious by blows. How many of them would have been women? Would I be wide of the mark in guessing that none of the casualties were women?