Paul,
So you agree with the mad Greens that a firearm should never be used for self defence, the question then arises; why do you think that the courts have been wrong to accept the using of a firearm for such defence to have been lawful and theState, in some cases not even prosecuting?
http://www.watoday.com.au or Google “Elderly man who shot home intruder will not be charged”
Do you think that the old gent was not justified in protecting his sick wife?

Again you state that our gun laws are being watered down, how and when?

You also trot out your old furphy (polite name) that the SSAA is controlled by the US NRA, in all the times you’ve trotted out that rot you’ve been challenged to give evidence, so far you have failed to do so; I won’t hold my breath this time either.

So Issy you are embarrassed to give any details as to how allowing the ownership of a gun for no other reason than self defence would work. You refuse to answer because we both know that only a "Dodge City" environment would be the result. Armed citizens, vigilantes and accidental deaths of the innocent would far outweigh any so called justified self defence.

Was that you today, the masked man of Windang firing a riffle off in the main street? That's what a moronic gun policy results in, crazy nutjobs shooting at everything and everyone.

SSAA = American NRA. The Shooters and Hooters Party is in the pocket of foreign pro gun interests!

Paul,
You’re all BS, just give a reference to your ‘evidence’.

Would you have let the elderly man in WA be assaulted by those thugs that invaded his home and threatened the safety of his sick wife?
Or do you think that he had a right to protect her and that using a gun, given his age was justified?
Evidently the WA police thought so, why in your Green opinion were they wrong?

I don’t believe that the current gun laws are wrong, the restriction on possession for self defence is particularly good.
We’re it not for John Howard and his law drafters the SSAA would not have grown from some 40,000 members to the over 200,000 of today, we would not have the hundreds of gun clubs and the hundreds of pistol clubs that have sprung up since the introduction of the more stringent laws; nor would we now have more firearms in civilian hands than ever before.

Interesting comment from Prof. David Flint:

"What we have seen from the US media with the Rittenhouse case has been disgraceful. If they had done that in Australia, they would have been ruined by massive defamation payouts and worse, they would be behind bars".

Hi Issy,

I believe in non-violence, and the rule of law.

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

I'll accept there is some ambiguity with the wording, "or using a firearm". A police officer may in exceptional circumstances have reason to use a firearm, that's a given, and even that could extend to private security in very exceptional circumstances. The grey area is private citizens and the use of firearms, I have absolutely no problem with the words; "That personal protection should never be regarded as a genuine reason for owning or possessing a firearm." in the rear event that a private citizens life or the life of someone else's is in mortal danger the use of an available weapon to protect that life is reasonable. It would be difficult in a shock situation, given the proper storage of firearms and ammunition that quick access would be possible. Of course I'm not going to accept 'Dodge City' type laws as they have in parts of America, armed citizens acting as vigilantes or organising into private militia. Nor do I accept the use of a firearm to protect property, when a life is not in mortal danger. The three 'Good Ole Boys" in Georgia is a perfect example of lax gun laws and where they can lead.

I would be shocked should Australia ever take on Americas so call "right to bear arms", its original meaning has been bastardized to the point where too many innocent lives are being sacrificed in that country every year because of it.

BTW, I accept people should play baseball, but I don't accept people should carry a baseball bat in their car just in case they get into a road rage situation. My mate who carried a toy water pistol in his glove box to frighten those that 'pissed him off' when driving, he seen no harm in it.

Paul,
So in a few words you agree that the Greens’ Principle 7 is wrong to say that a firearm should never be used for self defence.
As to having a firearm available, many firearm owners can access their firearms in a surprisingly short time, they have safes with electronic recognition, so can be opened in seconds.
Then there is the case when a person is legally using a firearm and suddenly comes into mortal danger for example the sudden attack by a scrub bull.
That such bulls are a danger is borne out by the WA police issuing licences for powerful pistols to be carried by stockmen in parts of that State.

Just Google “Scrub bull Australia” for some graphic images of the most dangerous animal in the country.