As we have a right to self defence then it follows that we have a right to an adequate means of such defence.

Do you disagree with that statement, Paul?

If so, why so?

Hi IM,
That may be so, but that prompts the question of what is a reasonable limit on those means.

Most assaults on the person are not perpetrated by criminals going about armed looking to attack people. Those are a small proportion of the total. The majority of serious violence is perpetrated by people who know each other who find themselves in situations that escalate out of control into violence.

The best means of defence is avoidance. Ask the SAS fellas, they know a few things about that sort of stuff. If avoidance fails, then what is needed is an ability to bring overwhelming force, which is where the cops come in.

If a situation deteriorates to the point of violence, then the last thing we need in civilian populations is two people armed with guns pinging shots at each other. Have a look at the US, where there are so many people shot by cops, often in the mistaken fear they are carrying a weapon.

The game isn't worth the candle.

If there are very few guns available to the general public then we don't need guns for self defence. A golf club or baseball bat perhaps but you don't protect yourself with a gun against someone who doesn't have a gun.
And what are the chances of a home invasion by someone with a gun? Far less than the chance of being killed in a car accident or dying from an obesity related illness.
In fact, if we are so concerned with our mortality we would ban all foods containing added sugar because that is a far greater risk to anyone's health.

Big Nana,

If one is in one's 83 year, as I am, and is attacked by a 6 foot tall, 20 year old weighing 15 stone, what would you suggest that such a peson use to defend themselves?

The question is, how safe are the rest of us from an armed 83 year old trotting around scared of every passing youth?

There are many guns still available and soon probably also machine guns. If not already available.

When many guns used to be available there were not the stabbings or shootings that occur these days. Prohibition-type gun laws are not stopping those with a mind to rob or kill.

If a citizen had a rifle in their car at Port Arthur it may have been possible to shoot that idiot before he killed so many people. It's that possibility that should be understood and respected.

Many people die from smoking cigarettes that government continues to reap tax revenue from? Are gun laws really about public safety?

On islands off Australia's shores there is now chronic non communicable disease killing people every day and cause and solutions are ignored.
A few dead from guns in Australia is nothing in comparison. Seafood devastation linked malnutrition and associated death in the South Pacific Islands is a disgrace, right on Canberra's doorstep.

Should decent law abiding Australians be ignored or denied their right to medical attention, or be denied their right to have a gun to prevent death?

I suppose soon someone will post about more people dead from bee stings than from sharks, rhetoric told without reality about a tiny sting compared to being ripped apart while still alive.

Times have changed.
Terrorism is here with indications of worse to come.
We have a right to defend ourselves when police are not quickly on hand.

Police are under-equipped anyway.
Police should also have shotguns and rifles readily on hand.
Pistols are deadly but are virtually impossible to accurately aim.
So much for help from police against a rifle or even a shotgun.