Self defence in Australia (LDP)

[Newtosilver]

I haven't stated my position yet, so I'll do so now. I think everyone should have the right to secure their family, home and property against criminals.

Currently the law prevents you from having the means to defend yourself - defensive items such as pepper spray and wearing a bullet proof vest is illegal. I don't think it's very fair that the criminals can use guns and knives, and your mum can't own pepper spray or even a loud siren.

The ban on bullet-proof vests always seems a bit weird, but it's important to understanding the psychology behind having weapons.

If people - anyone - can own a gun, then you need one too in case one of those other people goes a bit crazy and tries to do you harm. If people can own guns and bullet-proof vests, then you need a bigger, more powerful gun to protect yourself from a crazy person with a gun and a bullet proof vest. If people can own big, powerful guns and bullet-proof vests, then you need an RPG to protect yourself from a crazy person with a big, powerful gun and a bullet-proof vest. And so on.

Defensive items might seem perfectly sensible, but they contribute to the escalation of arms just as much as offensive items.

Your chance of being harmed by someone increases dramatically if you look like you pose a threat to them.

Having done armed robbery holdup training myself - and having had a gun pointed at me in a non-training situation as well - being made defenseless and vulnerable sucks. It's a horrible feeling. Unfortunately, it's also the best way of getting out of the situation alive, because whoever is threatening you has already decided what they want to do and how far they're prepared to go with it. You, on the other hand, have had a grand total of perhaps a few seconds to come to grips with the situation, you've just had a massive dose of adrenalin hit your brain and can't think properly, your palms are sweaty, your limbs are shaking and your heart-rate is going through the roof.

Police and soldiers train for years to be able to overcome those reactions to physical threats, and even then they still don't always manage it perfectly.

There are so few truly murderous psychopaths around that it's really not worth worrying about and everything else is basically just property crime. In the grand scheme of things, increasing the number of guns in circulation and taking all the accidents, overreactions and heat-of-the-moment arguments that turn fatal that come with that isn't a good trade-off when there's hardly any property that can't be insured and, I'd argue, none that's worth someone losing their life over.

Arguing about the "right" to defend yourself is all well and good, but the reality is that in most situations you're better off waiving that right and letting someone take your stuff. Yeah, it still sucks, but it's better than the body count that comes with the alternative.

Sums it up perfectly.

 

[Jislizard]

The ban on bullet-proof vests always seems a bit weird...

I always thought the ban on bullet proof vests was so that the police (the only people legally allowed to carry a gun) would be able to shoot you if necessary.

In any situation where you are a threat the police want to be able to kill you quickly and if you are wearing a bullet proof vest they might have to take a bit longer to do it.

In a parallel universe it would be a health and safety requirement to wear a bullet proof vest when out hunting to prevent accidents. You wear a life vest when sailing so why not a bullet proof one when hunting?

 

[radiobirdman]

I take it from your post Big AD and previous ones , you are all for open borders, open wallets and now an open front door take what you want policy

 

[mmm....shiney!]

In the grand scheme of things, increasing the number of guns in circulation and taking all the accidents, overreactions and heat-of-the-moment arguments that turn fatal that come with that isn't a good trade-off when there's hardly any property that can't be insured and, I'd argue, none that's worth someone losing their life over.

Do you have any stats to back that claim or is it just your opinion?

 

[Newtosilver]

... these shitty minorities trying to impose their will upon the majority (Yennus you would be at the top of the list as well as boardie and shiney). How dare these idiots try and impose their will on the majority,...

That's not very nice (and not very accurate either)... I'm not trying to impose my will on anyone - I'm just hoping to have the right and means to defend myself and those I care about.

I haven't stated my position yet, so I'll do so now. I think everyone should have the right to secure their family, home and property against criminals.

Currently the law prevents you from having the means to defend yourself - defensive items such as pepper spray and wearing a bullet proof vest is illegal. I don't think it's very fair that the criminals can use guns and knives, and your mum can't own pepper spray or even a loud siren.

Without going back and checking every post you have made I am pretty positive every post relates to firearms eg the picture aof the hammer and the AR15, the post ref the dictators etc.

If people you want pepper spray, a lump of wood, golf club or a baton etc and you want to use it in your own home then fair enough I think. At least you pose no great risk to yourself, your family or some poor innocent person.

With bullet proof vests they are illegal for one reason, police do not want them in circulation because the police want to maintain an advantage, criminals if they are smart and know what they are doing and it was legal to buy vests would buy them but instead of buying vests that will only stop pistol rounds they buy heavy vests similar to what the miltary use with balistic plates which are heavy and bulky but provide better protection than what a homeowner or police use (police vests do not have ballistic plates as they are not practical to wear unless they are worn short term as they really restrict mobilty, are heavy, make getting in and out of cars difficult etc). Any move to legalise vests would be opposed by every police commisioner in Australia as well as the police union. The Govt listens to police commisioners and police unions

 

[SteveS]

.....Guess what, you a very, very TINY minority group trying to impose your will upon the majority, when you say one thing and do another what is that called?

Well, as a Leftie, isn't it your mission to protect minorities?

I am far from the far left, they are as big of idiots as the far right The thing is you see anyone who is not far fright as a leftie.

I see what you did there - you misrepresented what I said and then claimed you can read my mind, so that you could more easily argue against me.

Basic Leftie 'Debating' Tactics.

 

[Jislizard]

With bullet proof vests they are illegal for one reason, police do not want them in circulation because the police want to maintain an advantage, criminals if they are smart and know what they are doing and it was legal to buy vests would buy them but instead of buying vests that will only stop pistol rounds they buy heavy vests similar to what the miltary use with balistic plates which are heavy and bulky but provide better protection than what a homeowner or police use (police vests do not have ballistic plates as they are not practical to wear unless they are worn short term as they really restrict mobilty, are heavy, make getting in and out of cars difficult etc). Any move to legalise vests would be opposed by every police commisioner in Australia as well as the police union. The Govt listens to police commisioners and police unions

I blame Ned Kelly for that, you Australians must have a sore spot about it.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

With bullet proof vests they are illegal for one reason, police do not want them in circulation because the police want to maintain an advantage,

Typical Statist policy, treat everyone as a criminal in order to maintain control.

criminals if they are smart and know what they are doing and it was legal to buy vests would buy them but instead of buying vests that will only stop pistol rounds they buy heavy vests similar to what the miltary use with balistic plates which are heavy and bulky but provide better protection than what a homeowner or police use (police vests do not have ballistic plates as they are not practical to wear unless they are worn short term as they really restrict mobilty, are heavy, make getting in and out of cars difficult etc). Any move to legalise vests would be opposed by every police commisioner in Australia as well as the police union. The Govt listens to police commisioners and police unions

You said heavy ballistic vests restrict movement, are cumbersome and make getting in and out of cars difficult etc. As well as trying to avoid being shot, criminals also rely on being able to move quickly to avoid capture. So what you're arguing is highly unlikely to happen.

 

[Newtosilver]

The ban on bullet-proof vests always seems a bit weird...

I always thought the ban on bullet proof vests was so that the police (the only people legally allowed to carry a gun) would be able to shoot you if necessary.

In any situation where you are a threat the police want to be able to kill you quickly and if you are wearing a bullet proof vest they might have to take a bit longer to do it.

In a parallel universe it would be a health and safety requirement to wear a bullet proof vest when out hunting to prevent accidents. You wear a life vest when sailing so why not a bullet proof one when hunting?

You are 100% correct about the police.

You use a centerfire rifle while hunting? You realise a vest will not stop a centrefire round? If you want protection from a centerfire rifle you need body armour with balistic plates (those plates are roughly 8 inches wide and say 10 inches high) and only offer protection from a frontal round over a very small area if you have plates they offer "some" protection and are better than nothing if you are in a war zone but body armour is bloody heavy and extremely bulky, it is not practical to wear the stuff unless you have a very high risk of getting shot.

Back in 2006 one of the fellas who I deployed with was hit, round missed the plate and went through the vest like butter and the round that hit him was fired from around 300 meters and it was only a round from an AK (7.62x39).

If you need body armour for safety reasons when hunting you should not be handling a firearm in my opinion.

 

[Newtosilver]

With bullet proof vests they are illegal for one reason, police do not want them in circulation because the police want to maintain an advantage,

Typical Statist policy, treat everyone as a criminal in order to maintain control.

criminals if they are smart and know what they are doing and it was legal to buy vests would buy them but instead of buying vests that will only stop pistol rounds they buy heavy vests similar to what the miltary use with balistic plates which are heavy and bulky but provide better protection than what a homeowner or police use (police vests do not have ballistic plates as they are not practical to wear unless they are worn short term as they really restrict mobilty, are heavy, make getting in and out of cars difficult etc). Any move to legalise vests would be opposed by every police commisioner in Australia as well as the police union. The Govt listens to police commisioners and police unions

You said heavy ballistic vests restrict movement, are cumbersome and make getting in and out of cars difficult etc. As well as trying to avoid being shot, criminals also rely on being able to move quickly to avoid capture. So what you're arguing is highly unlikely to happen.

Shiney , shiney, shiney. You have to balance speed of movement against the procection offered by body armour, if I was hitting an armoured car for example (which I would never do) Wearing body armour would slow me down but due to the threat level I would be wearing it. If I was to rob a corner store I wouldn't, I would go for the ability to move faster. I can't post it on an open forum but if you are ever in Brisbane give me a yell and I'll show you some video footage that is a perect example of speed of movement vs the benifit of wearing it.

Edit : I am in the video and it very, very cool smashing windows, knocking doors of higes with sledge hammers and shooting the shit out of everything.

 

[Jislizard]

You use a centerfire rifle while hunting?

You realise a vest will not stop a centrefire round? If you want protection from a centerfire rifle you need body armour with balistic plates.

I don't hunt or have anything to do with guns
(I was in a rifle club as a youth, come from a military background and fired a few rounds on a stag party event but that's the full extent)

I assumed that people used shotguns for hunting and a bullet proof vest might help a bit.

Like I say, hunting has never appealed to me so I don't know a whole lot about it.

 

[Newtosilver]

You use a centerfire rifle while hunting?

You realise a vest will not stop a centrefire round? If you want protection from a centerfire rifle you need body armour with balistic plates.

I don't hunt or have anything to do with guns
(I was in a rifle club as a youth, come from a military background and fired a few rounds on a stag party event but that's the full extent)

I assumed that people used shotguns for hunting and a bullet proof vest might help a bit.

Like I say, hunting has never appealed to me so I don't know a whole lot about it.

Yes you are correct about a shotgun, a vest without plates would work. Same as a.22 or a .22 magnum for example if you were shooting rabbits. If I was hunting (which I no longer do) and I was with someone and they put a vest on I would be in the car and gone. I would be questioning their competence and would not feel safe with them, that is just me personally.

 

[yennus]

...
Arguing about the "right" to defend yourself is all well and good, but the reality is that in most situations you're better off waiving that right and letting someone take your stuff. Yeah, it still sucks, but it's better than the body count that comes with the alternative.

The difference between your view and my view is that people should be given a choice whether they want to a means of defending themselves (or not) - whereas your view requires every law abiding citizen to be defenseless.

Ultimately you are supporting a position which says "We know better than you - therefore don't defend yourself."

 

[Newtosilver]

...
Arguing about the "right" to defend yourself is all well and good, but the reality is that in most situations you're better off waiving that right and letting someone take your stuff. Yeah, it still sucks, but it's better than the body count that comes with the alternative.

The difference between your view and my view is that people should be given a choice whether they want to a means of defending themselves (or not) - whereas your view requires every law abiding citizen to be defenseless.

Ultimately you are supporting a position which says "We know better than you - therefore don't defend yourself."

Maybe it is because he has the ability to think ahead and not look at things in terms of black and white?

Remember that video of Jim Jeffries Juliew posted awhile back?

 

[yennus]

.

Ultimately you are supporting a position which says "We know better than you - therefore don't defend yourself."

Maybe it is because he has the ability to think ahead and not look at things in terms of black and white?

Remember that video of Jim Jeffries Juliew posted awhile back?

That's funny - you think taking away peoples right to self defense is not looking at the issue in black and white?

That's funny - you would look to a Comedian for self defense policy over common sense principles.

You should remove all locks at your home - it only makes it harder for the police/fire/ambulance to reach you in an emergency.

 

[Newtosilver]

You have no concern for the effect that your choices have on others. You can not look more than one step ahead.

You are in the 5% of the population that wants gun laws relaxed and you talk about common sense - I love it. The 5% have common sense and the other 95% don't - that makes perfect sense. You are a minority and a very, very small minority.

As a comedian he raises very relevent points and uses them to pull the piss out of the pro gun movt and you know what people piss themselves laughing because he is spot on the money and he highlights the stupidity of the pro gun movement and their arguments. What makes things he says funny is that they are true.

Freedom is one thing but you seem to be big on Freedumb.

 

[yennus]

...
Freedom is one thing but you seem to be big on Freedumb.

Sorry - you seem to have a monopoly on dumb.

The right to self defense isn't restricted to only gun control - it extends to other restrictions too - like having access to protective clothing, or pepper spray, etc (which are primarily defensive tools).

The profound arrogance of your position is startling: "We know better than you - therefore don't defend yourself."

 

[Newtosilver]

I am with the 95% who have it wrong

Keep pushing for freedumb, you need to defend yourself, do you have a lot of people who hate you and are out to get you or something? It sounds really dangerous where you live.

 

[yennus]

Even if 99% of people agreed with you - I would still value individualism over collectivism.

Enjoy your socialism.

 

[Newtosilver]

Lol if you don't support your ideas ref guns you are a socialist and socialists are evil. Similar to your other post, Hitler came to power because people did not have a rifle to overtrow him.

I have to ask but I think i know the answer, obviously people could carry knives in public for self defence? Could 15 year olds carry knives for personal defence? If not would the age be 18?