At what cost to protect yourself?

News and events in the media and political arena relating to firearms.

Re: At what cost to protect yourself ??

Post by Redwood » 24 Sep 2014, 2:39 pm

Shotfox wrote:Even to the point of non lethal means such as capsicum spray, tasers are illegal. Women, the aged the disabled are most vulnerable and likely targets.


That's something I've never understood. I've heard arguments that if pepper spray becomes legal crims will start using it in holdups and s**t like that. :roll:

It's not like they don't manage without the stuff as it is. I dunno about you, but I'll take getting pepper sprayed over getting stabbed or clubbed with a bat any day.

As it is there are large sections of the population at a huge disadvantage in this kind of situation. Regardless of any fringe problems legalising sprays and tasers would level the playing field for a huge number of people.

Has to be worth it overall I think.
Redwood
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 152
Victoria

Re: At what cost to protect yourself?

Post by 1290 » 25 Sep 2014, 8:20 am

keep pepper spray illegal so that the crims dont get hold of it..... like saying that we should make sawn off shotties, stolen pistols, AKs etc illegal so the crims neither have access to those, maybe try to make drugs illegal so the crims cant access them too!!

Laws regulate the law abiding.

Legislating against guns disarms the members of the community who not only want them but also.... need them.

If the police are vulnerable outside a police station, what about average joe in the streets??

As far as yesterdays incident, the kid was carrying a short knife that he stabbed with, a longer one for pics later maybe, but why have no agencies reported the AXE?? CLEARLY VISIBLE IN THE VISION. (we're too sensitive to think about the use of the axe to 'finish off'?) the other object were a couple of steel pickets and picket drivers.... AND the reports of the second person looking on!! Was he(?) filming the 'event'. It appears we're only drip-fed info as necessary.
User avatar
1290
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1336
Victoria

Re: At what cost to protect yourself?

Post by Aussier » 25 Sep 2014, 8:32 am

1290 wrote:If the police are vulnerable outside a police station, what about average joe in the streets?


That thought had crossed my mind for what's happening in Canberra ATM.

Beefed up security around Parliament House... So what happens some nutjob decides Parliament House is too difficult a target and goes down the road knocking on the door of Joe Blow to pull out into the street to film his 'message' instead?

Any increased security for the neighbours? I sure haven't seen any.
User avatar
Aussier
Lance Corporal
Lance Corporal
 
Posts: 232
Australian Capital Territory

Re: At what cost to protect yourself?

Post by Die Judicii » 25 Sep 2014, 11:56 am

Gee,,,,,,,,,,
The govt must be getting slack.

They haven't banned axes yet ?????????????? :o :shock:
I do not fear death itself... Only its inopportune timing!
I've come to realize that,,,,, the two most loving, loyal, and trustworthy females in my entire life were both canines.
User avatar
Die Judicii
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3706
Queensland

Re: At what cost to protect yourself?

Post by 1290 » 25 Sep 2014, 1:24 pm

If anything this is proof that we live in a class society.... them and us. They can have their private public funded auto rifle toting force.... we can even carry pepper spray....

I'm wondering if the Axe would fall under vics no-knife carry laws....
User avatar
1290
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1336
Victoria

Re: At what cost to protect yourself?

Post by Harper » 25 Sep 2014, 4:10 pm

Pays to be a chef maybe so you have excuse to carry one around with you :D
Savage 14/114 American Classic 30-06 Springfield
Savage Axis 25-06 Remington
User avatar
Harper
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 281
Northern Territory

Re: At what cost to protect yourself ??

Post by cavok » 25 Sep 2014, 5:51 pm

whert wrote:I learned today on the radio the PM has a private security detail with him when he goes anywhere.

Now I understand why self defence isn't an option here. We're just supposed to have private body guards? Must be nice to have the tax payer cover that for you while leaving the rest of us out to dry.


Actually in Victoria and sunny Australia we, both you and I have the same right to use force in protecting ourselves and others. Reasonable and proportionate force as describes in the crimes act of 1958 has been available, to the security guards of prime ministers or any person whom is being attacked. Self defence again if you exercise reasonable force you can and always could do what is reasonably necessary. Self defence was always an option and I right now to all of us, you don't need any body guard, never did.
“When all about you have lost their heads and you remain calm, perhaps you do not understand the problem”.
Per ardua ad astra.
User avatar
cavok
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 353
Victoria

Re: At what cost to protect yourself?

Post by FuzzyM » 25 Sep 2014, 7:26 pm

What defines reasonable force though?
That is what I have always wondered about.

Not to mention proving who started the altercation.
User avatar
FuzzyM
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 328
Victoria

Re: At what cost to protect yourself?

Post by Westy » 25 Sep 2014, 8:47 pm

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


PRANOID!!!!!!!!!!
the lot of you!!!!!
I've learned that pleasing everyone is impossible, but pissing everyone off is a piece of cake.
User avatar
Westy
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1276
Queensland

Re: At what cost to protect yourself ??

Post by 1290 » 25 Sep 2014, 9:29 pm

cavok wrote:
whert wrote:I learned today on the radio the PM has a private security detail with him when he goes anywhere.

Now I understand why self defence isn't an option here. We're just supposed to have private body guards? Must be nice to have the tax payer cover that for you while leaving the rest of us out to dry.


Actually in Victoria and sunny Australia we, both you and I have the same right to use force in protecting ourselves and others. Reasonable and proportionate force as describes in the crimes act of 1958 has been available, to the security guards of prime ministers or any person whom is being attacked. Self defence again if you exercise reasonable force you can and always could do what is reasonably necessary. Self defence was always an option and I right now to all of us, you don't need any body guard, never did.

Its not about whether we have the right to self defence, thats a given; its about the right to carry 'something' to aid in our defence...pepper spray, firearms whatever.....
User avatar
1290
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1336
Victoria

Re: At what cost to protect yourself?

Post by Die Judicii » 25 Sep 2014, 9:31 pm

Try walking into a bank with a motor cycle helmet on and see how far you get.

Do they ask the walking Post Boxes to remove their head gear ????? :roll:
I do not fear death itself... Only its inopportune timing!
I've come to realize that,,,,, the two most loving, loyal, and trustworthy females in my entire life were both canines.
User avatar
Die Judicii
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 3706
Queensland

Re: At what cost to protect yourself ??

Post by cavok » 25 Sep 2014, 10:09 pm

1290 wrote:Its not about whether we have the right to self defence, thats a given; its about the right to carry 'something' to aid in our defence...pepper spray, firearms whatever.....


I am uncertain if you actually, with respect, actually understand what is written. The right to defend yourself is just that. "A person may use such force as he" etc, 462a of the crimes act. Read and understand, this is a silly subject, its there know it and use what you will. Stop looking for more than there is, "reasonable and proportionate" leave it at that and walk away. I like your statement that it's a given, if you know that, then why ask?
“When all about you have lost their heads and you remain calm, perhaps you do not understand the problem”.
Per ardua ad astra.
User avatar
cavok
Corporal
Corporal
 
Posts: 353
Victoria

Re: At what cost to protect yourself?

Post by Techc » 26 Sep 2014, 11:13 am

Die Judicii wrote:Try walking into a bank with a motor cycle helmet on and see how far you get.


You get to the floor?
.223 Remington Savage Model 12 FV
.308 Remington 700 SPS tactical
Leupold VX-3 6.5-20x40mm
User avatar
Techc
Private
Private
 
Posts: 93
South Australia

Re: At what cost to protect yourself ??

Post by 1290 » 26 Sep 2014, 4:50 pm

cavok wrote:
1290 wrote:Its not about whether we have the right to self defence, thats a given; its about the right to carry 'something' to aid in our defence...pepper spray, firearms whatever.....


I am uncertain if you actually, with respect, actually understand what is written. The right to defend yourself is just that. "A person may use such force as he" etc, 462a of the crimes act. Read and understand, this is a silly subject, its there know it and use what you will. Stop looking for more than there is, "reasonable and proportionate" leave it at that and walk away. I like your statement that it's a given, if you know that, then why ask?


Hey, I dont need to when I've got you to interpret it for me :roll:
User avatar
1290
Warrant Officer C1
Warrant Officer C1
 
Posts: 1336
Victoria

Re: At what cost to protect yourself?

Post by Utcherd » 27 Sep 2014, 8:11 am

Techc wrote:You get to the floor?


"escorted" to the floor :lol:
User avatar
Utcherd
Private
Private
 
Posts: 81
New South Wales

Next

Back to top
 
Return to Firearms related media and politics