I should have added that it was Greens' Lee Rhiannon and the NSW Greens who opposed the reinstatement of the right to self defence in NSW. Rhiannon said at the time, "The Greens believe it is outrageous that the test is how the defendant perceives the situation rather than an objective assessment of the overall circumstances."

Tell that to a women who is confronted in her home by a thug who is telling her that she will die along with her watching children if she doesn't submit to rape. She will likely die anyhow to conceal the crime. Only in NSW is the onus on the police and police prosecutor to prove that she (and her infants) wasn't in fear of injury. As Lee Rhiannon and the Greens would have it, the rape victim would be subjected to police interrogation, a cell and serious charges herself in court, while being required to prove via the reversed onus of proof, that her act of self defence was reasonable under the circumstances. That is,

- could she have thrown her children and herself out of the window to escape?

- how could she be sure that he meant to harm her, maybe he was only making a threat and his fly was open by chance.

- could she have made it to the phone in the bedroom and waited for 'quick acting' police etc etc?

Only the Greens would contemplate continuing unfair law that re-victimises the victim through reversed onus of proof. Was she really in fear? Did she really have to hold that weapon (bread knife) in front of her? Did her 'dangerous' dog really have to bite the criminal? Come off the grass, Greens!

onthebeach, firstly I can't speak credibly to the situation in India. I've never been there and the Indian's I know well enough to comment on tend to be well educated and decent people. Eg my views are largely centred in our own culture and life experience.

I doubt that Individuals desire for forced national service will ever get up and based on what I've seen of those who have done military service I'm less than confident that it would reliably impart the kind of values that would prevent misuse of concealed weapons.

I also have serious doubts that any government screening program charged with issuing licenses to women to protect themselves would not become corrupted by those with an agenda. Government rarely does that stuff well.

I'm thinking about about the kind of rules I'd be willing to have in place before someone could legally open fire on me as I was going about my life. Eg a feeling of being threatened does not in my view constitute a valid reason to kill me.

I've read of abuses where those who were clearly defending themselves were put through hell by the law - an intruder coming through their window at night with a weapon in my view counts as a pretty clear threat.

A male who happens to be walking through the same poorly lit car park at night as a woman who has recently had a personal safety fright does not constitute a proven threat. For concealed weapons to be used without significant personal risk they would generally need to be used before the perceived threat turned to reality. By the time the threat is proven to be certain the risk is that the attacker is close enough to take that same weapon by force.

The idea of those claiming to have been defending themselves carrying a burden of proof is troublesome but not in my view as troublesome as giving those who feel threatened (real or not) a license to kill with few questions asked.

R0bert

RObert,

OK, we will leave India out of it.

I am not sure why you believe that military service would impart values that would deter a person from committing a crime. As I recall and somewhat vividly, the military teaches soldiers to kill. Their weapons are just that, weapons. Whereas the many thousands of Aussies with firearms licences see their firearms as just that, firearms. The difference is real and the gap enormous.

All that can be said is that it isn't the simple tool, be it fists, knife, blunt object, gun, or whatever, or its availability that causes them to commit a crime. Their choice to offend and choice of tools required is a secondary consideration. It is the person not the tool.

I would be happy to be surrounded by neighbours with firearms licences. Because they are police certified through all manner of checks, history and personal reference, to be law-abiding citizens. They must remain so or lose the licence. But they would never offend anyway. Can you see the paradox?

As an aside, I do not understand how anyone can believe that allowing duly licensed and trained LAFOs the protection of their firearms for defence in their home would somehow cause them to act differently and commit crimes. If they wanted to commit crimes or were were likely to act irrationally with a firearm they could do that already. Such people cannot get a licence anyway. But any criminally inclined can still choose their weapon and get a gun. They don't need licences. Another paradox. In any event it is all irrelevant, a strawman argument when applied to me, because it isn't what I have been talking about or suggesting.

All I am concerned about as an Australian is removing the ridiculously unfair reversed onus of proof that is applied to those who defend themselves and their loved ones from an attacker, especially in a home invasion. I am not talking about using firearms. That is irrelevant and has no bearing on the subject at all.

Onthebeach the topic was about women specific pistols for self defense. Admittedly the firearms being discussed are in India which I've diverged from because I just don't have the background knowledge of what actually happens there to make informed comment and I think some of the issues can be generalised. Concealed firearms carried in public seem to be at the heart of the issue rather than irrelevant. I've seen too many lies, half truths etc in reporting of gender issues here to be confident that we are getting the full story about what happens in India BTW.

I'm quite in favor of people being able to do whatever it takes to defend themselves from a home invader, the concept of reasonable force is in my view a nonsense when faced with an assailant of unknown capabilities initiating a crime.

My concern is the gray areas's, some peoples idea of self defence can be a lot more pre-emptive than I'd count as self defense or just be an escalation of a fight they initiated. I'm not confident that Indian men who are not rapists deserve to get shot because someone else was frightened to tie it back to the topic.

In regard to my comment about national service it was an attempt to address Individuals earlier point about national service reducing the risks I've raised.

People should be able to defend themselves but making preemptive or just plain wrong judgments about a situation should not excuse them from their actions. Shoting someone down without clear proof that genuine and serious threat existed because you were scared should not come attached with a stay out of jail card.

R0bert