Is Mise,
Yes, you could bash your assailant over the head with a fire extinguisher, providing you are strong enough to lift the damn thing!

TRTL,

Pre 1996 there was no problem associated with those persons that the various Commissioners of Police considered suitable to be issued with a licence to 'Possess, Use and Carry' a pistol.

i don't see where there would be any problem now. There were never licences issued for 'open carry' although people used to open carry in the bush, on their own property etc.

The abolition of personal protection use has only made the lot of the criminal easier.
It follows that anyone who denies the law-abiding citizens the opportunity to have personal protection fnds themselves on the side of the criminal.

Had I my way any law-abiding person would be trusted to carry a weapon if they so desired. They are trusted with powerful motor cars and trucks and as much petrol and matches as they like so why not some low powered little hand gun that has much less potential for harm?

Spanky,

As you well know (I hope !) fire extinguishers come in many sizes, from tanker down to little ones for use in the car.

There is a size for every occasion!

OOOOH!...

Spanky,

There is also an occassion for every size !

AAAHHHHH!

Is Mise: "It follows that anyone who denies the law-abiding citizens the opportunity to have personal protection fnds themselves on the side of the criminal."

That's one of the most spurious things I've ever heard.

Surely you're not foolish enough to actually believe that's the case. I may as well just say people in favour of carrying guns would like to see more people shot. It's about as logical.

Wanting to restrict gun proliferation is about reducing violence. Whether you agree with it as effective or not is beside the point when assessing motivation.
To claim those arguing for these restrictions are doing it to aid criminals is simply childish.