Issy, can you give me the stats on how many people are killed in Australia each year by these "charging scrub bulls" is it higher or lower than the number killed by rampaging rhinoceroses.

You have not given me a broad definition of what is "lawful self-defence". Otherwise a long list of specific instances might be necessary. Everything from (A) out of control Aardvarks to (Z) rioting Zebras! What do you say to that?

Paul,

"Issy, can you give me the stats on how many people are killed in Australia each year by these "charging scrub bulls" is it higher or lower than the number killed by rampaging rhinoceroses"

No, I can't but I can give you the figures on the number that I killed last year, three (3) before they had a chance to charge.

But you don't answer my question, why would the Greens prevent a person from defending themselves from a scrub bull, or for that matter, from a rutting stag or a wild boar?

Paul,

Lawful self-defence is self-defence which would be deemed lawful by a Court of Law; such as an unprovoked attack where the defender fears for his/her life and takes action to defend that life.

Why do the Greens think that a person unlawfully attacked with a firearm and in mortal fear of their life should be prohibited from using a firearm for protection?

You have avoided answering this question a number of times; don't you understand Greens' principles?

Lets cut to the chase Issy, you like so many gunnies follow the edicts from your lords and masters at NRA America who want it "Dodge City Australia". WELL YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET IT.

I have calculated that only 0.000000001% of the population, and that's you, are possibly under threat from "rampaging scrub bulls", so rather than legislation I suggest next time you encounter one of thee beastly creatures, you partake of the following; "a Bex, a cup of tea and a good lie down" my old granny recommended that as a cure all for all that ale's you, so go for it boy!

I certainly understand "Greens" policy far better than you do.

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

See Dodge City comment. Why you don't agree with that policy is because you want to arm 98% population with guns. You want all laws and restrictions removed, you want vigilante mobs roaming the streets in pick-up trucks with machine guns mounted on the back, blasting away at "wrongdoers".

In the past members of the SSAA have been guilty of complicity in the murder of children! Are you still a SSAA member? Do the names Jack and Jennifer Edwards ring any bells with you?

Kudos- Is Mise on sticking to the discussion.

Globalists such as Communists and Economic Liberals will want the top end to hold the power monopoly. Especially lethal power.

On registration- not a supporter- but there are always ways for the police to gather information on suspects. The power balance seems so much in the police favour it's ridiculous. But strangely in a way they seem powerless- perhaps due to management issues.

Myself I don't own firearms- but understand that despite incidents there is necessity for public ownership.

In the Port Arthur incident- I understand that the main reason it lasted for so long is because of the lack of police preparation as they didn't have sufficient range to address the threat. Perhaps police needed to have better threat management processes.

It appears that in recent years self defence in Australia has been widely curtailed- restrictions on gun ownership is one more measure- others are rape defence laws, self defence in the home, in some states self defence has been removed from common law as I understand. The only defence seems to be to put your head in the line of fire- so to speak- not a defence at all.

Sometimes the police cannot be there so you will need to defend yourself. Traditionally males have provided this assistance to women. If males no longer provided this assistance perhaps women would understand more. Perhaps women "feel" that their shrill voice will save them in the "nanny state".

People used to be trained from childhood to accept that you need to be able be self sufficient in an emergency because no one is coming to help you. Reality doesn't change because of a feeling it changes when you understand it, research it, act on it. Ayn Rand puts it well- paraphrasing- you cannot demand motive power you must move.

Also police (and the courts and the government) aren't always on the side of the innocent.

As you have alluded to- from The Declaration of Independence- some things should not be subject to permission from the government but to higher or other principles.

Porky,

Another one of your Pauls, "... your lords and masters at NRA America "
Prove it, you have been asked to before but so far zilch.

So you understand Green principles, then pray tell us what is their position on, and solution for disarming the criminals?

We know that they have a position on disarming law-abiding citizens and leaving women on farms defenceless (and a solution to all of society's other problems) but we wonder why they don't mention criminals in their quest.