PAUL,

"Why the flippant semantics about whether you support the general public being permitted to carry concealed weapons as a means of self defence. Its been well established many times on OLO that you do".

Never once have I said that.

Issy,

Here is your opportunity to star, two opposing polices on the genuine reasons to own and use a firearm.

7.That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm.
The Greens policy.

5 Establish family and home protection as a genuine reason to own and use a firearm and continue to support measures increasing a person’s right to self-defence.
The Shooters Party policy.

The question is which of the two policies do you agree with.

Never once have I (Is Mise) said that.

//I (Is Mise) firmly believe that everyone has the right to the best means of self-defence and that is usually a pistol.

The only reasonable interpretation of that statement is you agree with people carrying concealed firearms (pistols can be concealed) for self defence.

Paul, the answer to the question you pose regarding the right to carry arms, is a no brainer.
As an older person I completely agree with that premise.
As an older person, I am more aware and mature than a younger person who would be more prone to knee jerk reactions, thereby suggesting that there should an age limit to such an idea.
I'm not interested in shooting anyone, but if by doing so I removed a serious threat to everyone, I would be very satisfied that I had done something towards making it safer for everyone.
The baddies would have to think twice before 'doing' anything.
There is always the chance of injury or worse, but, without close protection you will 'definitely' be in trouble.
The good news is, those who do not agree with the idea, do not have to comply with it and are free to be attacked or worse.

ALTRAV,

//As an older person, I am more aware and mature than a younger person who would be more prone to knee jerk reactions, thereby suggesting that there should an age limit to such an idea.//
You narrowly restrict that assumption to yourself, therefore that cannot be extrapolated to cover the whole community.

//I'm not interested in shooting anyone, but if by doing so I removed a serious threat to everyone, I would be very satisfied that I had done something towards making it safer for everyone.//
The problem there is obvious, what constitutes a "serious threat" your interpretation may not be the same as others. Someone who to you might be considered a "serious threat" may be to others considered no threat at all.

//The baddies would have to think twice before 'doing' anything.// But would they, the evidence in countries where guns for self defence is accepted shows the baddies don't think twice, their crime statistics are worse than ours.

//There is always the chance of injury or worse// I'll agree with that, to oneself, to family, to friends, to neighbours, to innocent bystanders, the list goes on.

//without close protection you will 'definitely' be in trouble// Well, unless something has changed significantly that is not true. The vast majority of Australians like you and I manage to reach senior years unscathed, without the necessity of toting a concealed loaded gun. So the 'definitely' is definitely disproved.

//The good news is, those who do not agree with the idea, do not have to comply with it and are free to be attacked or worse.//
Well unfortunately, others carrying loaded guns will not be 'action in isolation' when the shooting starts the bullets do not discriminate between the goodies, the daddies and the innocent.

Paul,

"7.That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning, possessing or using a firearm.
The Greens policy."

That is the policy of uncaring cowards.

"5 Establish family and home protection as a genuine reason to own and use a firearm and continue to support measures increasing a person’s right to self-defence.
The Shooters Party policy."

Agree entirely, but that does not mean

"I (Is Mise) firmly believe that everyone has the right to the best means of self-defence and that is usually a pistol.

The only reasonable interpretation of that statement is you agree with people carrying concealed firearms (pistols can be concealed) for self defence."

The only reasonable interpretation is that I believe that people have such a right, not that I necessarily agree that the right should be respected in all cases.

There is a vast difference between having a right and being able to exercise that right.

For example, we all have the right to end our lives, suicide is no longer a crime, but the Government continues to deny the exercise of that right, especially to the terminally ill etc.