Should pepper spray be legal?

[JC102]

I was browsing YouTube earlier, and I read through some comments regarding pepper spray in Australia.

Some people say it should be legal, while others say criminals will go around spraying people

I'm aware it's legal in Western Australia, but not in all other states (correct me if I'm wrong). Victoria Police recommends carrying a whistle apparently.

I say it should be legal. Thoughts?

[chickapow]

Some people say it should be legal, while others say criminals will go around spraying people

Issues of self defence aside for a moment, of course criminals will spray people.

It will be the same as guns. Us Law abiding citizens would do everything right, a small percent of crims will use to to rob places or whatever.

Is one worth the other? Up to your personal opinion.

[chickapow]

Oh, and P.S.

Yeah, carrying whistle is a f***ing stupid suggestion

[Sender]

Not as an off the shelf thing I don't reckon, but sure.

There should be some sensible system in place (not like our firearm various systems for firearms) that screen out the crims for easy access but give to everyone else quickly/easily.

[butiwanna]

It will be the same as guns. Us Law abiding citizens would do everything right, a small percent of crims will use to to rob places or whatever.

It just sucks that that's the default position on everything here.

If someone can thing of one potential negative for something, that's seemingly the end of it and it's banned.

Both sides of the argument never get any consideration.

Something like pepper spray I think could do more good than harm.

[steyroy]

It just sucks that that's the default position on everything here.

If someone can thing of one potential negative for something, that's seemingly the end of it and it's banned.

+1

[Warrigul]

Allow posession for everyone, make the use of it except in self defence illegal.

Simple really.

[mahna]

Allow posession for everyone, make the use of it except in self defence illegal.

Same for firearms self defence too IMO.

I can't say I agree with concealed carry. I do believe if we just had a blank card law of everyone can carry whenever/wherever we'd end up like the states and all there shooting deaths.

But having a firearm for home, and being able to use it for self defence in your own home, that should be Ok IMO.

If you take your home defence firearm out into the street and get caught then fair enough, you get charged for doing the wrong thing.

Defending yourself in your home though, no brainer.

[Blackened]

I can't say I agree with concealed carry. I do believe if we just had a blank card law of everyone can carry whenever/wherever we'd end up like the states and all there shooting deaths.

I can't remember where I read these figures so don't take this as gospel... I read that for shooting deaths in the states the type of firearms used was something like 13,000 for handguns, and 30 for long arms for a period of time, it might have been a year?

Not tough to see where the problem lays... And no surprise obviously. Crims aren't going to hole up petrol stations with their .308 sporter are they. It needs to be something concealable for them to make trouble.

A sensible selection of long arms for home defence should be acceptable in my opinion. Something like an over under shotgun in 12gauge or 410 bore. I would think in 99% if cases just staring down the barrels would make a criminal give up or run. In the worst case scenario if a shot did have to be fired, you wouldn't have to worry about over penetration or missing with a rifle cartridge and a bullet ending up in the neighbours house.

This is all academic though as I don't see it happening either way.

[JC102]

Some people say it should be legal, while others say criminals will go around spraying people

Issues of self defence aside for a moment, of course criminals will spray people.

It will be the same as guns. Us Law abiding citizens would do everything right, a small percent of crims will use to to rob places or whatever.

Is one worth the other? Up to your personal opinion.

I know there will be isolated cases, but I think it will do more harm than good. Was it ever legal to carry?

Is self-defence with a firearm only legal in extreme circumstances? Was it ever? (I'm not a shooter, yet)

[Warrigul]

Allow posession for everyone, make the use of it except in self defence illegal.

Same for firearms self defence too IMO.

I can't say I agree with concealed carry. I do believe if we just had a blank card law of everyone can carry whenever/wherever we'd end up like the states and all there shooting deaths.

But having a firearm for home, and being able to use it for self defence in your own home, that should be Ok IMO.

If you take your home defence firearm out into the street and get caught then fair enough, you get charged for doing the wrong thing.

Defending yourself in your home though, no brainer.

If it is good enough to defend yourself in your own home then why is your life worth less when in public?

The issue has never been with those that abide by the law, I am a great believer that were I allowed to carry tomorrow then I would be no more likely to shoot someone but would be equipped in case it were neccesary.

A firearm is a great leveller, but once again it is a moot point as it will never happen in this country.

[chicachicka]

Is self-defence with a firearm only legal in extreme circumstances? Was it ever? (I'm not a shooter, yet)

I believe (not a lawyer, not legal advice) you're only allowed to defence yourself with "reasonable" force.

e.g. if someone was in your house but unarmed and you shot them, you would probably be charged with something.

Not saying I think that's right, but I believe that's the way it is.

There was something in the news a little while ago where some junkie was strangling his landlord on the front step and a neighbour shot him. From memory of the news article the police were deciding whether to charge him or not at the time.

I don't know how much more in danger you can be than getting strangled, but there you go.

[mahna]

If it is good enough to defend yourself in your own home then why is your life worth less when in public?

The issue has never been with those that abide by the law, I am a great believer that were I allowed to carry tomorrow then I would be no more likely to shoot someone but would be equipped in case it were neccesary.

I don't have all the answers, mate. It's a complicated issue.

Of course LAFO's aren't going to go out and rob a petrol station or shoot someone if were were suddenly given concealed carry.

Of course criminals are the only ones doing this.

Like I said, I'm not disputing anyone's right to defend themselves. And if someone invades your home, I think the collar should really come off.

You can't deny the US has problems though...

I heard in a gun-control debate in the states someone put out the point "how many mass shootings/deaths are we willing to accept to maintain our gun rights?" I know that's dramatic, but I also think there is some truth to it.

I don't doubt for a moment that concealed carry would save some people from attacks or whatever. I also don't doubt that some smaller incidents would get escalated and end worse than they otherwise would have. Pros and cons...

I know it varies from state to state in the US, but in the most relaxed places anyone can get a pistol and concealed carry no questions asked and there are no storage requirements. Personally I think that's stupid. The easier you make it for criminals to get guns to more often they will, and will do wrong with them.

I used the idea of a sensible long arm, secured at home for self defence as a starting point which I do think is a good idea. I think that would give the maximum benefit at home, as well as the minimal amount of potential problems.

Like I said, I don't have all the answers. I know the above won't sit well with some, but it's my opinion.

[Guliver]

I can't remember where I read these figures so don't take this as gospel... I read that for shooting deaths in the states the type of firearms used was something like 13,000 for handguns, and 30 for long arms for a period of time, it might have been a year?

That's a fairly irrelevant fact, handguns are over represented because they are plentiful and usually close at hand, if there were no handguns almost a 100% of deaths would be attributed what ever was available.

Some of the deaths may not happen if the shooting was committed in a moment of rage and not premeditated, having a handgun close at hand makes a shooting possible, having to go and get a rifle from were it's stored may give the person time to think about what there about to do.

[Blackened]

That's a fairly irrelevant fact, handguns are over represented because they are plentiful and usually close at hand, if there were no handguns almost a 100% of deaths would be attributed what ever was available.

That makes no sense at all.

If someone is shot with a hand gun, they are shot with a hand gun. Period, hard numbers, end of story.

Because the handgun was close/convenient doesn't change the fact they were shot. You can't say "this person was shot but doesn't count, it only happened because a hand gun was nearby".

That's like saying the drug addict only took the drugs because they were in his pocket. The wreckless driver only drove because the car was in his driveway.

People in the states aren't getting slapped to death with spatulas and having the police write it up as a shooting. The number of shooting deaths is what it is, regardless of the situation in which it occurred.

I'm not saying that a death may not still occur in a particular situation, but the numbers are what they are for the purposes of having an accurate conversation and make meaningful arguments they need to be acknowledged as they stand - not interpreted as the author sees fit in order to strengthen their position.

I mentioned I was going from memory and not to take the figures as gospel. If you've some some other numbers and their source, by all means let me know.

Some of the deaths may not happen if the shooting was committed in a moment of rage and not premeditated, having a handgun close at hand makes a shooting possible, having to go and get a rifle from were it's stored may give the person time to think about what there about to do.

I think you're understating that a lot.

I have no doubt the vast majority of shooting deaths in the states are related to crime. Robberies gone wrong, gang fights, acts of rage like you touched on above. To say that just 'some' of these will not happen is an understatement IMO.

Anyone can fire a pistol, it takes the a fraction of second, no skill and no strength.

To kill someone with a manual tool (bat, rope, knife) would be an entirely different and more visceral act. A criminal may not have the strength, appropriate tool, time, opportunity or be emotionally detached enough to spend 2-3 minutes manually killing someone.

You're suggesting that if every handgun was removed from America, than nearly every murder would be replaced with a baseball bat or whatever. Personally I think that's nonsense. Of course some will still happen, but I think the number would be greatly reduced.

That's my opinion anyway. I'm happy to discuss alternatives as long as we're acknowledging facts and not twisting them to our own end.

I gave my view on what I thought a sensible first step for self defence was. If you've got an alternative I'm open to hearing it.

[Norton]

Strangely anti-gun for a shooting forum moderator, B?

[Guliver]

What I was trying to convey was that crimes of passion may be less likely to happen if the perpetrator had a few seconds to reconsider their actions. In these sort of crimes only. Pistols being over represent because of the ease of access, pistols usually being kept close at hand in the house, bedside drawer, kitchen etc., rifles more likely to be in storage.

[Blackened]

Strangely anti-gun for a shooting forum moderator, B?

Not at all. You don't have to be either "ban all guns" or "assault rifles for everybody!" when it comes to firearms legislation. I have my opinions which rest in the middle somewhere.

What I was trying to convey was that crimes of passion may be less likely to happen if the perpetrator had a few seconds to reconsider their actions. In these sort of crimes only. Pistols being over represent because of the ease of access, pistols usually being kept close at hand in the house, bedside drawer, kitchen etc., rifles more likely to be in storage.

Sure, I understand your point. And arguments for defence pistols which must be secured while at home would address the issues you raise. That's fine.

Anyway we're well off topic now, so let's not highjack the thread any further. I've said my piece but if people want to continue the conversation start another thread so they don't hijack this one.

[JC102]

Any more opinions on this?

[Bark]

Buying it with with ID could be an option?

Just enough to deter idiots who plan to do stupid stuff with it from buying it?

[Jessie]

Any more opinions on this?

Why so keen on this? Putting together some submission to legalise it?

[Chronos]

That's a fairly irrelevant fact, handguns are over represented because they are plentiful and usually close at hand, if there were no handguns almost a 100% of deaths would be attributed what ever was available.

That makes no sense at all.

If someone is shot with a hand gun, they are shot with a hand gun. Period, hard numbers, end of story.

Because the handgun was close/convenient doesn't change the fact they were shot. You can't say "this person was shot but doesn't count, it only happened because a hand gun was nearby".

That's like saying the drug addict only took the drugs because they were in his pocket. The wreckless driver only drove because the car was in his driveway.

People in the states aren't getting slapped to death with spatulas and having the police write it up as a shooting. The number of shooting deaths is what it is, regardless of the situation in which it occurred.

I'm not saying that a death may not still occur in a particular situation, but the numbers are what they are for the purposes of having an accurate conversation and make meaningful arguments they need to be acknowledged as they stand - not interpreted as the author sees fit in order to strengthen their position.

I mentioned I was going from memory and not to take the figures as gospel. If you've some some other numbers and their source, by all means let me know.

Some of the deaths may not happen if the shooting was committed in a moment of rage and not premeditated, having a handgun close at hand makes a shooting possible, having to go and get a rifle from were it's stored may give the person time to think about what there about to do.

I think you're understating that a lot.

I have no doubt the vast majority of shooting deaths in the states are related to crime. Robberies gone wrong, gang fights, acts of rage like you touched on above. To say that just 'some' of these will not happen is an understatement IMO.

Anyone can fire a pistol, it takes the a fraction of second, no skill and no strength.

To kill someone with a manual tool (bat, rope, knife) would be an entirely different and more visceral act. A criminal may not have the strength, appropriate tool, time, opportunity or be emotionally detached enough to spend 2-3 minutes manually killing someone.

You're suggesting that if every handgun was removed from America, than nearly every murder would be replaced with a baseball bat or whatever. Personally I think that's nonsense. Of course some will still happen, but I think the number would be greatly reduced.

That's my opinion anyway. I'm happy to discuss alternatives as long as we're acknowledging facts and not twisting them to our own end.

I gave my view on what I thought a sensible first step for self defence was. If you've got an alternative I'm open to hearing it.

Have to agree with you here. More guns equals more shootings, lawful self defence shootings or not they all cast a bad light on shooters but that's another argument.

In the question posed by the op on pepper spray this is what I see happening if it were made illegal in nsw for example

Week 1, thousands of cans are sold. Most to women in major cities, lower socio economic areas where crime is higher and to fathers and husbands if women in the higher end of town. The media heralds it as a win for women exposed to violence.


Week 2, more sales of peppers spray, some media coverage about suppliers running out of stock. A couple if stories where it has been used, some women spray would be bag snatchers or a guy they met online who got a little "grabby"

Week 3, sales slow. Some clips appear or YouTube showing some teenagers spraying each other. Some CCTV footage appears of a 7-11 worker or service station attendant being threatened with pepper spray whilst being robbed.

Week 4, the media has come full circle. Nightly news stories about the misuse of pepper spray, robberies, assaults, random attacks filmed for entertainment and a woman who pulled her can out to try and discourage a junkie from taking her hand bag and was king hit

IMHO pepper spray is not an answer to domestic violence. If a woman need protecting she need to remove herself and her kids from the situation.

I would rather some lowlife run past and snatch my wifes or handbag and keep running than have her confront some looser with little to loose and willing to go to jail for $50 or $100.

Add to this the vase majority or rapes committed by current or ex partners or other acquaintances.

Aug 10, 2006 - Statistical information about sexual assault in Australia.

"Only 1% of the women surveyed identified having been raped by a stranger"

IMHO we need to educate women who may be at risk. Start by teaching them to to make an effective repeated strikes to the eyes, throat and/or groin. Then on how to report the incident

Chronos

[Elek]

There is a funny (maybe not the right word, but on with it anyway) story of how they trial tested mace with Police officers in QLD years ago.

I think I saw this on TV? I don't have an article or anything in front of me to quote numbers from so I'm making this up a little, but you'll get the idea. Anyway...

The year before they trialled mace there were something like 18 shootings by police against offenders per year.

Before mace a police officers options where to physically try and subdue someone if required putting themselves at risk, or shoot them, they didn't have an intermediate tool which was what mace was supposed to be.

The idea was in situations where it was dangerous for them to physically approach someone, mace gave them a middle ground option instead of forcing them to shoot someone.

They figured when they rolled this out that they might save 10 shootings a year to be replaced by macing an offender instead. Good in theory.

After the year of trialling the mace instead of about 10 used of it, there were something like 980 cases where they maced somebody

Bit trigger happy then?

[Chronos]

There is a funny (maybe not the right word, but on with it anyway) story of how they trial tested mace with Police officers in QLD years ago.

I think I saw this on TV? I don't have an article or anything in front of me to quote numbers from so I'm making this up a little, but you'll get the idea. Anyway...

The year before they trialled mace there were something like 18 shootings by police against offenders per year.

Before mace a police officers options where to physically try and subdue someone if required putting themselves at risk, or shoot them, they didn't have an intermediate tool which was what mace was supposed to be.

The idea was in situations where it was dangerous for them to physically approach someone, mace gave them a middle ground option instead of forcing them to shoot someone.

They figured when they rolled this out that they might save 10 shootings a year to be replaced by macing an offender instead. Good in theory.

After the year of trialling the mace instead of about 10 used of it, there were something like 980 cases where they maced somebody

Bit trigger happy then?

Yeah, I remember that, your numbers are pretty close but I think it was tazers, not mace.

I think it was I e if the speakers at a TED talk, I'll try to find it

Chronos

[Elek]

Yes! A TED talk, that's what it was.

Might be tasers you think? You could be right.

Oh well, still an interesting story

[Chronos]

the part we discussed here starts at around 7min in but the entire thing is interesting to watch for anyone imho,

Chronos

http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_colema ... apons.html

[Warrigul]

IMHO pepper spray is not an answer to domestic violence. If a woman need protecting she need to remove herself and her kids from the situation.

I would rather some lowlife run past and snatch my wifes or handbag and keep running than have her confront some looser with little to loose and willing to go to jail for $50 or $100.

Add to this the vase majority or rapes committed by current or ex partners or other acquaintances.

Aug 10, 2006 - Statistical information about sexual assault in Australia.

"Only 1% of the women surveyed identified having been raped by a stranger"

IMHO we need to educate women who may be at risk. Start by teaching them to to make an effective repeated strikes to the eyes, throat and/or groin. Then on how to report the incident

Chronos

You make it sound like 1% of women identifying as having being raped by a stranger as an acceptable statistic and not worthy of self defence.

As far as a woman removing herself and her kids from a violent situation it sounds easier than it is in reality. You get a nutter and he doesn't give a ****** how far away she has moved and most doors knock down with a couple of kicks.

As far as the self defence and reporting statement goes you perhaps need to look at what you are saying or how you are saying it as you appear to be shifting the responsibility or blame to the victim.

I'll be honest with you, a lot of competitive martial arts people and self defence class attendees have a very highly overrated opinion of what they are capable of and when confronted with someone who actually wants to do them harm they are in real strife. I have seen many come and go on door duties and most aren't much chop, nothing beats a competitive boxer or just a plain adrenaline psycho that wants to rip your head off for the fun of it. It is very hard to subdue a truly motivated person.

[on_one_wheel]

Yeah, make the pepper spray legal, but make sure people who use it without good reason are charged with assault. There are a lot of defenceless people out there who are easy targets for crims. On a side note I have a mate that got hit with pepper spray in Melbourne, he sat down at the bar next to a chick and said " how ya going ? "she hastily dove into her handbag and whipped out the can, sprayed his face and left... crazy b#*ch ! In her defence he does look and sound a little funny, top bloke but.

[Warrigul]

Yeah, make the pepper spray legal, but mae sure people who use it without good reson are charged with assault. There are a lot of defensless people out there who are easy targets for crims.

Well said.

[Chronos]

IMHO pepper spray is not an answer to domestic violence. If a woman need protecting she need to remove herself and her kids from the situation.

I would rather some lowlife run past and snatch my wifes or handbag and keep running than have her confront some looser with little to loose and willing to go to jail for $50 or $100.

Add to this the vase majority or rapes committed by current or ex partners or other acquaintances.

Aug 10, 2006 - Statistical information about sexual assault in Australia.

"Only 1% of the women surveyed identified having been raped by a stranger"

IMHO we need to educate women who may be at risk. Start by teaching them to to make an effective repeated strikes to the eyes, throat and/or groin. Then on how to report the incident

Chronos

You make it sound like 1% of women identifying as having being raped by a stranger as an acceptable statistic and not worthy of self defence.


Not my intension, I simply meant to stress that more needs to be done to help all women at risk if sexual assault and other violence and while a defensive weapon like pepper spray may help in a situation where she finds herself under attack (I stress may simply because the woman would need to be capable of using such a device effectively)

As far as a woman removing herself and her kids from a violent situation it sounds easier than it is in reality. You get a nutter and he doesn't give a ****** how far away she has moved and most doors knock down with a couple of kicks.

And how is her staying in an abusive relationship and arming her with pepper spray going to keep her and her kids safe? She needs support when she makes the decision to get out and the reporting is the start of that process

As far as the self defence and reporting statement goes you perhaps need to look at what you are saying or how you are saying it as you appear to be shifting the responsibility or blame to the victim.

Blame? No but responsibility yes. A woman is responsible for herself, and her kids. Surely you don't suggest she should rely on a man to protect her at all times, like occurs in some societies where a woman must be accompanied by a male family member when she goes out in public.

I'll be honest with you, a lot of competitive martial arts people and self defence class attendees have a very highly overated opinion of what they are capacle of and when confronted with someone who actually wants to do them harm they are in real strife. I have seen many come and go on door duties and most aren't much chop, nothing beats a competitive boxer or just a plain adrenaline psycho that wants to rip your head off for the fun of it. It is very hard to subdue a truly motivated person.

No difference putting a can of pepper spray in her hand then? Or a gun for that matter. What are the chances of that woman keeping composed in the face of such an attacker and using any self defence weapon effectively

I don't have all the answers, and I don't pretend to but these discussions are important. I know women who react well under stress, I married one. I've seen her do things I could not. But I also know of women who could not look an attacker in the eye and strike out.

I'm not trying to argue with anyone, just want to clarify my points, after all its an important topic

Chronos