Dear Is Mise,

What on earth does this incident have to do with anything firearm related unless you want elderly women in our supermarket car parks blazing away? Or perhaps you do.

And look at your response to the threat to policemen like Daniel Yeoman by wanting guns in virtually every house hold in Australia, 'oh we will allow him to have an off duty firearm'.

I was specifically asking you about the increased risk to his life while doing his job and having no answer you threw up that red herring.

You will need to do far better than that piss-weak effort my friend.

As to weakening our laws you fully supported dropping the requirement for those who are lackadaisical with the storage requirements to face court. No matter how much you try and twist it this is a loosening of laws around the safe use of firearms.

We don't need old ladies with firearms and certainly not EVERY household: For one, I would be refusing, so will they put me in jail, like in Switzerland, for NOT having a gun?

However, we do need criminals to BELIEVE that the old lady in the car park COULD have more than an umbrella and that home owners COULD have a gun as well as the permission to shoot them.

(this is one good reason for remaining anonymous here, so that criminals cannot identify me as someone who is unwilling to touch a gun)

Steele,

"And look at your response to the threat to policemen like Daniel Yeoman by wanting guns in virtually every house hold in Australia, 'oh we will allow him to have an off duty firearm'."

The increased risk to his life was off the job and because he was not trusted to have a firearm for self-defence whilst off duty.
What is wrong with allowing appropriately trained people to have a gun for defence of themselves or others?

The lady in Perth was put up just as a reminder of what happens to citizens who are unable to protect themselves.
Age makes very little difference, a distant relative of mine killed dozens of men when in her late twenties, early thirties and at least one of those that she killed then, she did with her bare hands, and in her eighties was capable of defending herself and still very handy with a knife or pistol.

What the public needs to know is that YOU OFFEND, are seen as committing an offence, BY the act of DEFENDING yourself.

That is the way the law has been framed and changed over time by left-leaning criminal defence lawyers.

So, whenever you are caused to defend yourself, loved ones or property, police investigators are obliged by the law to do their very best, their utmost, be their sneakiest, to prove you committed an offence.

Where YOU the victim are concerned, it is YOU who will be required against a REVERSED standard of proof, to prove that you were in real fear for your life, that there wasn't any even unlikely way you could have avoided YOUR offence against the feral (now cast as the victim) and that you used the minimum possible and 'right' force in the process.

The prosecutor can have some very optimistic opinion on your alternatives that could have saved the feral (now cast as your victim) from your offence, ie your attack.

If you are the victim or your loved ones are the victims of a home invasion, you must know that you should be mentally prepared and briefed in advance and legally represented through all stages of the investigation.

That is the way the law has been framed over time by criminal-favouring leftist lawyers lobbying politicians. The squeaky wheels won.

What is needed is a review of the right to defend. Especially where home invasion is concerned. This time with the victims and public involved. There is a growing number of single households and frail old.

I can tell you what I would have done

I would have told him to piss off and shut the door in his face. Seeing that he was a threat to my family and me, I would have armed myself with the largest and most powerful rifle or gun I had. Loaded it with full magazine and then called the police. If he had attempted to enter the house I would have shot him. Oh, and I would have aimed for the largest part of him I could see.

Do grow up a bit steely. I don't give a damn what constable plod might like, he is of absolutely no use or interest to me or anyone else around here. I would also bet a million that you have no interest in his wellbeing. Like all ratbag lefties, this worry about our cops is a total sham, being used to further your fool ideas on society.

In this area we have 2 cops, with one car covering 5000 square miles after hours. The chance of getting one of them to attend a home invasion is about one in a million, & that is after the one in a million chance of contacting them if needed.

Yes o sung wu our cops used to use a bit od common sense. I was once stopped near Richmond, by a local cop. A bunch of us had been up reducing the feral pig population on a mates property. My Singer 4A did not have a boot, so my mates rifle & mine were on the back seat. We had not shaved in a week, & baths were a dip in the Clarence river.

We had broken no laws, of that more enlightened time, & after checking us out, sent us on our way. I guess today we would be locked up.

Hey steely when did you last kiss a feral pig? Bet you love them, as they harm graziers returns.