Paul,

As you are an admitted Green I thought that you would be sprouting Greens' policy.
I've looked and the Greens have no policy on disarming criminals, and you have offered no explanation as to how you would disarm them.
Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. So pass all the laws you like but the question remains, how would you disarm the criminals?

You said earlier that you'd support the removal of all guns from society, why are you now reneging, why would the police need guns in a society where you have disarmed the criminals?

Belly,

That was a very humerous post.

Paul surely you know
Ise misery guts asks dumb questions, because he lacks the ability to address the subject
Indy? good bloke but not sure what the subject is
Funny thing is, in every case I know of, from elder abuse to hand bag snatching thugs, its is,if anyone is armed, the criminal not the victim
Now stepping outside the rules the Charlie Chuckles club want to impose on this subject
Just MAYBE sure and certain terms in prison
No revolving door justice, walking free
And more care for the welfare of our aged is a start on fixing this

Is Mise,

What you say about laws and criminals stands for everyone. We cannot rely on the law to protect us. Laws do not stop nasty things from happening. All laws can do is provide an opportunity to punish lawbreakers if they are caught. Even then, the pathetic penalties handed down by gutless judges and magistrates are no incentive to do the right thing. So, the law is definitely an ass in just about every situation. Hence the frustration on this subject, which I fully understand. However, it's going nowhere, and I don't see any solution, except for the acceptance that we can no longer take personal safety for granted, and it's up to each of us to be extra careful.

Belly,

You just said "Funny thing is, in every case I know of, from elder abuse to hand bag snatching thugs, its is,if anyone is armed, the criminal not the victim"

That's not true because I gave you the example of the elderly gent in WA who used his shotgun to protect his invalid wife; so you know of that instance.

Under Paul's desires the poor bloke would have been bashed or murdered and his wife 'collateral damage'.

Anyhow , how would you disarm the criminals, a practical solution, no airy fairy laws that they will ignore.

Of course you could appeal to their better nature.

Sorry but the last two posts highlight not understanding the problem is a problem in its own right
I question my questioners [ttbn not you it is clear you are grazing another paddock]
How would you ise mise protect the aged from being victims of worthless criminals targeting them, details please

Belly,

You're slipping, not a convoluted sentence in that post at all.

Answering a question with a question is a sign of floundering.

But to answer your question, I would allow the aged such manner of defence as they could handle.
Personally I prefer a walking stick.