//Now here's one that's not hypothetical, I was recently stalking foxes on a property between Inverell and Glen Innes and I was charged by a rather irate pig; as I was armed with my No1 Ruger in .220 Swift and he was very close, I was able to nail him with one shot; and that's all that I had time for.

According to the Greens' proposed law I would have been liable to prosecution for USING a gun in self defence.//

Do you have any data on the last time a person was actually charged with a criminal offence as a result of defending themselves against a wild animal? With any sort of weapon?

It doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would happen outside the Realm of Wild Hypothesis (a province of Imagination Land). Voyages to Imagination Land are fun, but not always useful.

In the real world, I think it's pretty well implied that when the Greens talk about the use of firearms in self defence, they mean self defence against attacking humans.

So if you have a charming anecdote about the time you were hunting urban foxes in a major city and were forced to shoot dead a wild homeless man that charged you when you startled him, that might have a bit more relevance to what the Greens are talking about when they talk about the use of guns in self defence.

But I think any talk of angry pigs misses the point (possibly deliberately so).

Hi Toni,

Well, he does say 'the Greens' PROPOSED law'. No need to go about shooting homeless people, that's a bit 'outside the Realm of Wild Hypothesis ', don't you think ?

Cheers,

Joe

Is Mise, you avoid giving answers as usual. I can only assume your silence indicates you consider Ian Turnbull was wronged when he was found guilty of murdering environment officer Glen Turner. After all Turnbull was only defending his property from government interference, something you agree with.

Your support of the Shooters Party and their way out policy of 'no gun control' is ridiculous. You would be happy to see children with guns in their school lunch boxes. Grandma's with guns, shooting check-out chicks if they were over charged.

Joe 1930 and Albert Namatjira, the blokes been dead for nearly 50 years are you recalling those Cucumber Wars of yours. LOL.

Beach, have you got your citizens militia up and running yet? Pauline awaits

I suppose that the positive side of the election is that the green's senate vote fell and they look like losing up to 3 senate seats.

Paul,

Don't be such a dill; I answered your ? about Turnbull long ago.
The rest of your rant is Green lies.

More later, I've bee out hunting foxes (successfully) all night. I'm offto bed.

Paul,

You know very well that the environment officer wasn't armed, or threatening Turnbull, who shot him in cold blood.

Interesting technique in arguing: go to extremes, drop out a key factor if necessary, then accuse someone of something they would never support.

Albert Namatjira died in late 1959, August I think. So nearer to sixty years. I was commenting on OTB's comment about Indigenous people using guns and, while you may not be able to imagine anything before the present, it seemed relevant to refer to incidents in the past. Sorry for the mental confusion.

In connection with that, and Indigenous people, and guns, AND the SA Protector's Letters, I was surprised to discover that, in South Australia, it has always been legal for Indigenous people to have guns - they were British subjects, after all. One time, around 1880, the Protector specifically points this out. He used to issue guns for free to older Aboriginal people who couldn't work, and other Aboriginal people paid only half the cost for their guns. Repairs to guns were, respectively, free and at half-cost.

Rev. Taplin reports in his Journal [see www.firstsources.info], in about 1862, that when a young bloke (Nipper) set fire to his parents' wurlie, they lost numerous spears, a rifle and a shotgun. Taplin got the police from Goolwa to take the young bloke away, which pissed off the parents. I think he did three months.

Glad to be of help :)

Joe