Is Mise, all that guff in your last post, does that mean you hit the monkey?

to answer your question as I always do. I will answer for NSW, The Greens through their dedicated parliamentary team, along with our actives members, and supporters, work tirelessly to protect all the States national parks and open spaces from those of your ilk, gunnies, shooters, hooters and your general yahoos, who endeavor to takeover and destroy the little we have to satisfy their own selfish interests.
I can ask you the same question, what has the Shooters and Hooters Party, your SS mob and all those yahoos done to protect our enviroment. NOTHING! just the opposite, they set out to destroy it for their own selfish pleasure.

I asked you before to comment on one of your own, Tony Azzie, leading member of the gunnie community, and killer of endangered wombats! This is your peoples idea of conservation, if its not Fat Bob killing a majestic elephant in Africa, its Azzi killing protected species at Yass NSW.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/multimillionaire-car-dealer-tony-azzi-investigated-over-wombat-deaths-20151218-glqoga.html

Please explain how your notion of "good citizens" carrying guns for self protection will work?

How many people, 50% of the population, 90%, how many.
Will those guns be concealed in public, or will they be on open display, Dodge City style.
Under what circumstances could they be used.
What penalties if any, would be applied to those that did the wrong thing.
What will be the role of the police (sheriff) in all this.
Will citizens be involved in shoot outs.
Will people be able to settle their difference with a gun fight in the streets, wild west style.

Just watch any old John Wayne western, then tell me if that is how you envisage Australian society operating in the 21st century.

Please explain!

I disapprove of all guns. End of story.

Paul,

Nice rant.

Now debate the question and do you believe that people have a right to self defence?

Is Mise, the primary source of defense for the ordinary citizenry should be in the hands of the police. Often in times of argument and dispute the police need to be involved.
Wherever possible a person finding them self in physical danger should remove oneself from that environment, and to a position of safety if at all possible. Then and only then should a person need to defend them self in a reasonable manor as a last resort.
Having said that I don't see any need to arm the populace as you would have it, in fashion of a lawless town of gunslingers.

Now you tell me how you see guns and the ordinary citizen.

Please explain how your notion of "good citizens" carrying guns for self protection will work?

How many people, 50% of the population, 90%, how many.
Will those guns be concealed in public, or will they be on open display, Dodge City style.
Under what circumstances could they be used.
What penalties if any, would be applied to those that did the wrong thing.
What will be the role of the police (sheriff) in all this.
Will citizens be involved in shoot outs.
Will people be able to settle their difference with a gun fight in the streets, wild west style.

These are all reasonable question, you choose to ignore.

Paul'

All of your questions are irrelevant to the question of whether people have a right to defend themselves; do they have that right?

If they have that right then we may consider how that right might be tempered for the good of society.

Take the case of a farmer on whose property there is a dangerous scrub bull.
Should the farmer be allowed to take a firearm with him when he goes out to repair some fences?
He isn't setting out with the intention of hunting the bull but just wants to have a rifle handy if the bull attacks him.

Is Mise still ducking and weaving when asked to state your position on the issue of guns for so called self defense. I have put my position clearly but you refuse to state your position.

Its clear that your position is one of uncontrolled gun ownership. You have no regard for the cost in human terms from such a selfish attitude!

Paul,

"Take the case of a farmer on whose property there is a dangerous scrub bull.
Should the farmer be allowed to take a firearm with him when he goes out to repair some fences?
He isn't setting out with the intention of hunting the bull but just wants to have a rifle handy if the bull attacks him."

Should the farmer be allowed to protect himself?