Dear O Sung Wu,

If we can remove the chance of even one person not
succeeding in their desire to take their own life
or kill other people -
due to having access to a firearm - then I, like
Mr Howard, feel that the density of guns within a
population should go and remain down.

Statistically - a ban on fire-arms has in the past
has reduced both
homicide and suicide rates.

See you on another discussion.

Cheers.

o sung wu I am surprised you, who must have considerable unarmed combat training should mention such things as "*Cosh, *Kubotan, *Billie clubs, *Batons, *Night Sticks" as self defence weapons. While perhaps suitable for use as part of a group's weapon, they along with knives make the solo user more vulnerable in my mind.

Add in knives, & in most hands they so restrict the user in method of attack, that their actions are well telegraphed, allowing a defender fairly simple options of most effective defence.

In fact, when a little fitter, I would prefer to be attacked by someone wielding any of these weapons, than a powerful barehanded person.

I have no idea about tazer, but have heard some reports of them being ineffective. Is this common, or are they really able to stop a moving attacker in their tracks.

Yes there are probably times when even my slow old Venom would be to fast to be effective, & being very unhappy in helicopters, I guess it will have to be the trusty rifle, or a nice Smith & Wesson for me.

o sung wu,

BTT? OK:)

In my first post I said that I would not arguing the case for weapons. However I would very much like to see withdrawn the unfair reversed onus of proof that re-victimises victims who sought to defend themselves and their loved ones. NSW has already acted on that and other jurisdictions need to follow NSW's lead.

Almost anything can be deemed a weapon by police. The ordinary citizen will go broke defending himself in court, even if he wins.

If you were disturbed by an armed intruder while writing out your shopping list and managed to get several in with your biro, it could be deemed an offensive weapon. You could be charged, hauled off and lobbed into court.

Likewise if you walked with a cane, or say a decent battery torch and a police patrol stopped you, be very careful what you say in return to the disarming query, "What's that for?". Protection is an admission you have an offensive weapon. That is serious.

If you used your torch to whack some feral/s who threatened you and in response to police questioning later you admitted you carried the item for defence you could be well on your way to mortgaging your home to defend yourself in court.

Some here are cautious about defence options. Rightly so, because if there is ever an incident the visiting police will haul off your PC to find evidence. Don't imagine you will get off for aerosols either, unless it was impromptu.

The Weapons Act and the reversed standard of proof that applies (outside NSW) to citizens who defend themselves are very threatening There are examples where the police have proved that in spades, to the personal and financial cost of the victims who previously defended themselves.

o sung wu,

My walking sticks are not stout, they are mostly elegant and my favourite is very light (for a walking stick) and is made from the thin end of a billiard cue.
The wood looks like Queensland maple but is denser and the knob is turned from a piece of Queensland walnut, the dark brown wood of which is a nice contrast to the golden colour of the shaft.

As far as chemical deterrents go nothing beats a fire extinguisher, moreover they can be kept in all rooms of the house and no one can say really that they are there for self defence.

Should we be allowed to possess any thing for the purpose of self defence?

Which raises an interesting point, as the law says that nothing may be possessed for the purpose of self defence, is possessing the means of self defence against fire illegal?

Is the possession of self defence sprays against mosquitos illegal?

Nowhere did the drafters of the laws name any specific being or situation that could be the object of defensive possession, so one must assume that the laws apply against any possible danger.

A legal opinion would be nice on this.

Some legal opinion holds that a martial art is a 'thing' and that to possess (or learn) such an art, "for the purpose...." is a criminal offence.

Why would a secular government want to prevent suicides?

Believing that we are mere bodies, surely they think that "we" will die anyway, so what's the fuss if we die earlier? Perhaps they still want to squeeze some more tax and/or labour out of us? Or perhaps they like to justify the employment of more public-funded care-workers while poor Johny is unable to protest for years of lying and suffering helplessly with Parkinson?

No, more likely it is because their propaganda machine wants us to believe that they care!

No need for messy guns - anyone with about $10K can fly to Switzerland and end it there smoothly and painlessly. Those who don't may still do it with a car. Those who don't have a car can still climb a cliff and jump down.

If government wanted to prevent suicides, the best they could do is to stop driving people into despair by their restricting laws, including those that do not allow us to feel secure in our own homes.

Hi HASBEEN...

I agree with your comments concerning other options for self-defence.I was merely furnishing some non-lethal alternatives as defensive measures. Generally speaking there's probably nothing that would compare with a F/A. as the ultimate deterrent ? Some might not necessarily agree, however I'm speaking essentially, from the perspective of an ordinary member of the public. With some training, an appropriate calibre handgun, again with some moderate training, generally does the trick !

A highly skilled veteran of the FBI now retired, teaches a school, for both men and women wishing to obtain a handgun licence, for self-defence. He's 'told' (wink) me many times, he considers a Smith & Wesson .38spec J frame for women, and the same for men, but on a K frame. Both running .38spec, 110g or 125g + P's hp will do the trick. The J accommodates a women's smaller hand while the K suits most men. Venturing into more powerful stuff is counterproductive for a terrified women or male for that matter. Well trained police might opt for the .357mag, but the 38spec + P will do the job admirably, according to Ronnie F. And naturally I'd agree with him, I wouldn't dare, NOT to agree with Ronnie, he's one very 'handy' hombre is Ronnie ?

Evening to you, ONTHEBEACH & IS MISE...

Both of you are absolutely spot on ! It's an offence for anyone to carry any 'article' for the purpose of self defence ! Crazy isn't it ? Yet the law allows you to take all reasonably measures to defend yourself, or to defend another, if you believe you or another is about to suffer serious injury or death at the hands of an assailant ?That belief must be 'real and impending', not 'doubtful or remote' ? I know you've both, heard that tired old spiel before !

Coppers ask '...why are you carrying that pick handle...'? '...I use it after work in order to 'sharpen-up' my batting technique...''...Oh that's OK sir, well have a good night now...' ! The whole issue of legitimate self-defence is absolutely ludicrous.