City Cops tell citizens to defend themselves

[<<Genesis93>>]

You should really try to keep the element of surprise and use whatever you have on them before they have time to react. That's how you do it.

I think it depends on the situation. I'd much prefer to pull a weapon that gives them an opportunity to back off and stop, but use it if I had absolutely no choice, rather than to just take a life straight up for the sake of surprise. But with the very limit options we have here in Australia (because we aren't allowed to use weapons for self defense) - I agree with you - sadly... surprise is one of very few options available to us.

Common trap.

We are not allowed to own, possess or carry weapons for self defence.

however;

We are not prohibited from using weapons for self defence.....

You and only you can decide how you defend yourself and those around you, should circumstances arise. You might use your hands, you might use something else, which might be a stick, a club even a gun. save yourself then let the courts decide whether the force was proportionate / appropriate....

How does it go? Better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6

[Title_II]

I would say most people (on the victim side) would be reluctant really have a go with a knife, whereas if the attacker got the knife off them due to their hesitation would more likely have no qualms about using it to full effect.

Knives aren't isolated with that. Any weapon that a victim has is likely to be used against them if the attacker can get that weapon off them. Gun, knife, taser, scissors, etc.

It's my opinion that no weapon should be presented unless that person is prepared to use it. True that many attackers may be deterred by the presence of such a weapon, however it's a gamble. With so many minds ruined by drugs - an attacker is just as likely to attack as to run these days, and if you're not prepared to use that weapon, you've just given an added opportunity to the assailant.

Statistics in the US show that people who resist violent crime have a higher chance of escaping without injury, people that use ANY weapon have a very high chance of escaping without injury, and people that present firearms almost always avoid injury.

All that "give him what he wants" and "don't fight back, he'll use that knife against you" is fairy tail bulls$%^& propaganda that's been tossed around for the last 50 years or so. Zero truth to it.

[Heckler303]

All that "give him what he wants" and "don't fight back, he'll use that knife against you" is fairy tail bulls$%^& propaganda that's been tossed around for the last 50 years or so. Zero truth to it.

Spot on. Only complete weaklings just give into what they want. How do you know once you comply they won't just turn back on you?

[adam]

Common trap.

We are not allowed to own, possess or carry weapons for self defence.

Symantec's really...

It's like correcting someone for saying "You aren't allowed to use life jackets / life boats" when ships aren't allowed to have life jackets and life boats, but should an emergency arise, they're allowed to use them.

And as you've suggested - you can use weapons once the situation arises (although you're not allowed to prepare for it), and then you are immediately guilty until (if) proven innocent.

In short - Australia does everything it can to stop people from being prepared to defend themselves.

Statistics in the US show that people who resist violent crime have a higher chance of escaping without injury, people that use ANY weapon have a very high chance of escaping without injury, and people that present firearms almost always avoid injury.

All that "give him what he wants" and "don't fight back, he'll use that knife against you" is fairy tail bulls$%^& propaganda that's been tossed around for the last 50 years or so. Zero truth to it.

Exactly. You see the same shops and people targeted again and again by thieves. The common stream seems to be the ones that do nothing back. The PC suggestion is to give in and not be hurt - but all you do is set yourself up for worse.

Australia is making all the right moves to increase criminal activity. Encouraging citizens to do nothing. Disarming citizens. Stopping police from pursuing.

The scary though is whether this is being done in ignorance, or deliberately so people will give up more freedom in the pursuit for protection.

[happyhunter]

.

[<<Genesis93>>]

Common trap.

We are not allowed to own, possess or carry weapons for self defence.

Symantec's really...

It's like correcting someone for saying "You aren't allowed to use life jackets / life boats" when ships aren't allowed to have life jackets and life boats, but should an emergency arise, they're allowed to use them.

And as you've suggested - you can use weapons once the situation arises (although you're not allowed to prepare for it), and then you are immediately guilty until (if) proven innocent.

In short - Australia does everything it can to stop people from being prepared to defend themselves.

No, not at all like correcting...the lifejacket point, whatever it is... Its an important point, its the difference between people actually resisting a personal attack - because they believe they're NOT ALLOWED to......

If I wanted to correct something- then I'd say it was neither semantics nor an anti-virus program

[adam]

If I wanted to correct something- then I'd say it was neither semantics nor an anti-virus program

LOL -

No, not at all like correcting...the lifejacket point, whatever it is... Its an important point, its the difference between people actually resisting a personal attack - because they believe they're NOT ALLOWED to......

Actually I think the definition is very close. yes - I agree we're allowed to defend ourselves against a personal attack. What we are not allowed to do is have any tools ready in advance for the job for that intention.

The ocean liner example fits perfectly. No life boats or jackets allowed. But you're allowed to try and save yourself until the rescue service arrives. If there's a bit of floating debris - bonus - but that drift wood better not have been there prepared for in advance, and you better have a good reason as to why it was there in the first place to prove that it wasn't preconceived.

The government seem's to see it's citizens as the problem - not the solution. They don't trust us. They nanny us. It's like we're kids to them. Have you got your stack hat on. Have you locked your guns away safe. Have you done your shoelaces up. Be good little boys and girls now, and leave the grown up stuff to us. Call us if someone's trying to hurt you, and just walk away...

[<<Genesis93>>]

You're right abouT the government seeing 'us' as the problem, why are they so concerned with advancing gun control measures?? Because the only thing that terrifies them, the ruling elite if you like.... the parties and their backers . ...more than an invasion by a foreign force - is an armed insurrection .

[adam]

And if you look at it - it's not just guns. Australia's law restricts us from even having pure defensive options as well. (aka - it's illegal for us to own or use body armour as well).

[Heckler303]

And if you look at it - it's not just guns. Australia's law restricts us from even having pure defensive options as well. (aka - it's illegal for us to own or use body armour as well).

But not ballistic helmets.



makes sense of course, there aren't any vital organs in the chest of course

[Vati]

And if you look at it - it's not just guns. Australia's law restricts us from even having pure defensive options as well. (aka - it's illegal for us to own or use body armour as well).

And probably because some idiot saw Lethal Weapon 4 and thinks a vest turns you into some unstoppable criminal juggernaut

[adam]

Hey - don't knock Lethal Weapon. I loved those movies!

[<<Genesis93>>]

and which movie has a plane being shot down with a 50bmg??

Our most esteemed law enforcement community do indeed obtain their firearm schooling from hollywood....

[becks]

makes sense of course, there aren't any vital organs in the chest of course

Breathing is for sissys

[Title_II]

and which movie has a plane being shot down with a 50bmg??

Our most esteemed law enforcement community do indeed obtain their firearm schooling from hollywood....

Sorry about that. We keep trying to burn them down but they really do have amazing fire departments and firefighting air support. We are now trying to get Trump to agree to turn his border wall sharp north at the western edge of Arizona

Seriously, though, California is a wonderful place. If it wasn't for the people, laws, idiots, traffic, debt, and taxes it would be great. They also have a very strong (but unfortunately minority) gun community. You can check out Calguns.net.

Bottom line - there is nothing wrong with California that couldn't be fixed with about 8 or 9 neutron bombs.

[<<Genesis93>>]

and which movie has a plane being shot down with a 50bmg??

Our most esteemed law enforcement community do indeed obtain their firearm schooling from hollywood....

Sorry about that. We keep trying to burn them down but they really do have amazing fire departments and firefighting air support. We are now trying to get Trump to agree to turn his border wall sharp north at the western edge of Arizona

Seriously, though, California is a wonderful place. If it wasn't for the people, laws, idiots, traffic, debt, and taxes it would be great. They also have a very strong (but unfortunately minority) gun community. You can check out Calguns.net.

Bottom line - there is nothing wrong with California that couldn't be fixed with about 8 or 9 neutron bombs.

What, give it back to Mexico?? Isnt it already almost majority mexican anyway??
swapsies for the Fast'n'furious AR15s....

[Gwion]

Imagine how concerned you guys would be about boarder security of the Mexican boarder stretched most of the way up the Western Seaboard!??!

[Title_II]

Imagine how concerned you guys would be about boarder security of the Mexican boarder stretched most of the way up the Western Seaboard!??!

It already does, it's just not manned

[shazz]

Sounds effective