Excellent firearms related tips

[pajamatime]

“That puzzles me Mr. Nichols because on the ‘Guns a Blazing Blog’ two months ago, someone posted how he felt a little uncomfortable when four youths were around him in a subway car.

http://moderncombatandsurvival.com/featured/firearm-self-defense-court-arguments/?utm_source=fb-mo&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=bulletproof-online-comments-social

[<<Genesis93>>]

[Supaduke]

This stuff has no real relevance in Australia. The chances of using lethal force with a firearm in Australia and not doing time are next to zero. Even in a home invasion. Your firearms should be secure, very difficult to prove there is a real and imminent threat to life if you have time to get your keys and open a safe. I worked as an armed guard for several years and I can tell you from a legal stand point if you shoot someone in Australia , you can pretty much guarantee you are going away. There is virtually no legal reason where you would be in possession of a firearm (as a civilian) and need it for self defence. Any sort of setup that allows quick and easy access to fireams and ammo will be seen as intent. Bluster and technicalities won't save you. No doubt people will throw a few scenarios at me to prove I'm wrong ,but they are the exception not the rule.

[<<Genesis93>>]

Bulldung.

Whether you're compliant with storage regulations would be a secondary concern of the court....if it can be proven you believed your / a life was in danger - would be the primary consideration.

and if one's life or those around them is in danger - its your obligation to protect them. Period.

Anyhow, all gun owners should keep their arms clean. very clean

[Supaduke]

I can assure you it would very much be a concern if you were compliant or not. There is no such thing as castle law in Australia , if you have your firearms in such a way as to be 'prepared' to use them that is intent. That is murder. You can not reasonably expect to use a firearm as a defensive weapon in Australia. If you can leave to go and get your firearm from a safe, then unlock your ammo, then load it, then return to use it, you had time to leave the area and the threat ceased. You had time to call the police. I didn't write the law, that's just how it is.

And this has nothing to do with protecting your family etc. By law you have the right to defend yourself, a person may use such force as necessary to protect themselves or the lives of others if the threat is imminent and immediate. Using a firearm is seen as lethal force, therefore it can be argued that your intent is to kill, not stop a perpetrator. Using a cricket bat or some other ad hoc weapon is a completely different story.

Having a loaded shotgun propped up behind the door "just in case" will see you doing time for murder

[<<Genesis93>>]

Supaduke, I hear what your saying....I disagree with your interpretation...I'll just say that I dont want to get into the self defence with a firearm circular argument, its been done here.



This message will self destruct for the reasons of the op so please dont quote it

[Supaduke]

As is often the case , outlandish scenarios are presented to support a point of view . I too have had this discussion with people and the old adage of "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" is often bandied about. The fantasy of saving the day guns blazing is all well and good but not reality. Critical incidents are all about time. Assuming your firearms are stored correctly there would not be time to retrieve and use them (while being shot at) . The way Australian law stands at the moment, using a firearm for self defence is not a viable option for the most part where some form of self defence is required. I guess I will take my chances with gun shooting , knife wielding maniacs bursting through my door. I Do hear what you are saying, and I don't agree with the law as it stands, but that's how it is.
We can continue to tailor specific scenarios to make your argument viable, may as well say "what happens if 20 ninjas come bursting into my house" in which case I concede, fire away. As long as we can keep everything friendly here. Not trying to start a blue

[<<Genesis93>>]

What law are you referring to that say YOU or I cant use a firearm or a knife or a club or a whatever to defend ourselves?

No, no intention to blew over it here, but what pisses me off is the possibility that someone, a law abiding bona fide member of society, who happens to own firearms, would specifically NOT use them to defend the lives around him/her because he or she THOUGHT it was illegal to do so......

What I'm saying is DO what you must. Be judged later.

[Supaduke]

As I said in my initial statement, ad hoc weapons are a completely different story. If someone comes at you with a knife , you look around , spot a garden stake and use that to defend yourself, perfectly legal. The key point here is "intent" . Defending yourself or others is perfectly legal. Using makeshift weapons that are on hand is legal. Walking around with a handgun tucked into your waistband for "protection" demonstrates intent , in the same way as carrying a knife. In the eyes of the law firearms are not sporting goods, they are seen as weapons, just like you can't justify carrying a knife around on the off chance you might need to dice a carrot. A knife on a kitchen bench however is reasonable to use as a defence weapon because it was what came to hand. My point is , properly stored, a firearm would not be at hand, therefore you would have to make a conscious effort to go and get it, load it, and use it. That all demonstrates your intent to do harm. And that is where the law will bite you in the ass.

[Gwion]

Let's just say that running to your safe, locating bolt/removing lock, sourcing ammo, loading and then defending you and yours is a complete waste of valuable time; even if you can legally use lethal force in response to lethal force.

If you can get to the safe with out getting killed, maimed or incapacitated, you can very likely escape. Also, while you are distracted getting all your firepower together, you and yours are sitting ducks.
Sucks arse, but that is the reality of it.

[pajamatime]

was a bit vague with the OP and I'm sorry about that but the reason behind posting was to give people a healthy warning about whats suitable and not suitable to post on public forums and how it could be turned against you at some point in the future. But This discussion is fun as well as I'm very pro self defense with what ever. Things will change in this country and there is no reason for it not to unless you like being disempowered (simple definition: to cause a person or a group of people to be less likely than others to succeed) while the criminals run around with all the weapons murdering and stealing from law abiding citizenry.

lets face it! 99.99999 percent of people only got one life so it makes allot of sense to defend it with the most effective means and besides how are we to know exactly the type of weapon they may have concealed? we won't until its brandished and pointed in our direction. we can protect our sheep, our politicians, our money , our police, our soldiers and our criminals but we can't protect our families. Shouldn't we be angrier about this? shouldn't we be fighting allot harder to fix self defense up good and proper? /rant over.

[Supaduke]

This is about to get a bit nerdy and jargon filled but I feel it is a public service to shed some light on this often contentious subject

You are able to defend yourself, it is covered by the use of force in the crime act section 462a. Anyone who , as I have, has been licenced to carry a firearm on duty will know this passage very well

CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 462A

Use of force to prevent the commission of an indictable offence
A person may use such force not disproportionate to the objective as he believes on reasonable grounds to be necessary to prevent the commission, continuance or completion of an indictable offence or to effect or assist in effecting the lawful arrest of a person committing or suspected of committing any offence.

From that basically you get levels of force

Get grabbed you can push
Get pushed you can punch
Get punched you can kick
Get kicked you can use a blunt weapon
Get hit with a blunt weapon you can use a sharp weapon
From sharp weapons onwards that is considered lethal force and its more or less gloves off at that point

However......

It is overshadowed by this piece of legislation
(b) Whoever, being armed with a dangerous weapon, assaults another with intent to rob or murder shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than twenty years. Whoever, being armed with a firearm, shotgun, rifle, machine gun or assault weapon assaults another with intent to rob or murder shall be punished by imprisonment in state prison for not less than five years and not more than 20 years.

There are many subtleties as well however
Knock a man out that is trying to hurt you, no problem
Knock a man out that is trying to hurt you, then kick him in the head, you're going to jail now because the threat had ceased

The law goes on like this and is open to interpretation. The basics are there though, you can defend yourself however you need to until the threat ceases or to stop a crime that is punishable by jail (indictable offence) . So you can't punch the ****** out of someone for jaywalking. You can't give someone a roundhouse to the head because they pushed you. You can't take a firearm into a volotile situation with the intention of using it to hurt or kill someone.

Clear as mud? Good stuff

[Heckler303]

f people only got one life so it makes allot of sense to defend it with the most effective means and besides how are we to know exactly the type of weapon they may have concealed? we won't until its brandished and pointed in our direction. we can protect our sheep, our politicians, our money , our police, our soldiers and our criminals but we can't protect our families. Shouldn't we be angrier about this? shouldn't we be fighting allot harder to fix self defense up good and proper? /rant over.

I fully agree with you pajamatime, we SHOULD be angrier about this. What sort of dumbass in charge thinks it is a good idea to write legislation basically saying that if someone breaks into your home and threatens your family/possessions and you can't do bugger all to stop that.


If Australia got it's act together, we would have items for self defense made legal AND we would have a castle law enacted so that we can protect our properties if need be and not be charged for it.


One other idea we could also implement is simply killing off criminals we already have clogging up klinks everywhere. That's money + resources put into people who are practically worthless and aren't going to ever contribute something to society (not like they ever did anything before) is just completely wasted.

Until the greenies start bagging about how 'everybody has a story oh boo hoo harsh environment for these people'

[adam]

This stuff has no real relevance in Australia.

This stuff has REAL relevance in Australia. Not the drawing a sidearm part... but the watching what you post on the internet part.

[Gwion]

Supaduke, not to argue about it but i'm not sure you have explained the escalating scale of force sufficiently. Rather than a 'i'm pushed i can punch' scenario, it is a continuum.

As you say, once a threat level has been reached or 'reasonable fear of' a threat level has been attained, you may respond with proportionate force; once that threat has deescalated, you must also deescalate your level of force; if the threat then re-escalates, then you can re-escalate your use of force in response, ie: it must remain 'reasonable and proportionate' at ALL times. It is a very tricky concept to get your head around because it all relates to situations, experience and known skills.

Also, the level of threat is determined differently from state to state. For instance, in Victoria, there are no provocation clauses, yet in Tasmania, the provocation clause remains. This means that in Victoria, an adult male telling another adult male, "i'm going to punch your head in" is not taken as reasonable threat to safety to respond with force, yet in Tasmania, it can legally be argued that it is, as it can be taken as provocation.

None of the issues with use of force are straight forward and anyone who feels they may need to use force at some point to defend themselves would do well to read and understand their local laws relating to the use of force, assault and self defence.

[Gwion]

This stuff has no real relevance in Australia.

This stuff has REAL relevance in Australia. Not the drawing a sidearm part... but the watching what you post on the internet part.

Absolutely! And thanks to the OP for posting the topic and link. It brings up some important facts for members of this type of forum to consider.

[Supaduke]

This stuff has no real relevance in Australia.

This stuff has REAL relevance in Australia. Not the drawing a sidearm part... but the watching what you post on the internet part.

Yep fair call, I guess the whole self defence arguments in court did rattle my cage and overshadow the initial point you were trying to make. I need to call redtube and get them to take down a certain video

[happyhunter]

.

[Supaduke]

There are also many men (and some women) languishing in jail who claimed self defence. I can assure you that aint conjecture or heresy . No one said it was impossible , just not recommended. The law is there , use of lethal force can be justified . Look at the four coppers that shot the kid with knives. Most would say that was a clean shoot, took years to be exonerated and ruined their lives.

[pajamatime]

Supaduke, not to argue about it but i'm not sure you have explained the escalating scale of force sufficiently. Rather than a 'i'm pushed i can punch' scenario, it is a continuum.

As you say, once a threat level has been reached or 'reasonable fear of' a threat level has been attained, you may respond with proportionate force; once that threat has deescalated, you must also deescalate your level of force; if the threat then re-escalates, then you can re-escalate your use of force in response, ie: it must remain 'reasonable and proportionate' at ALL times. It is a very tricky concept to get your head around because it all relates to situations, experience and known skills.

Also, the level of threat is determined differently from state to state. For instance, in Victoria, there are no provocation clauses, yet in Tasmania, the provocation clause remains. This means that in Victoria, an adult male telling another adult male, "i'm going to punch your head in" is not taken as reasonable threat to safety to respond with force, yet in Tasmania, it can legally be argued that it is, as it can be taken as provocation.

None of the issues with use of force are straight forward and anyone who feels they may need to use force at some point to defend themselves would do well to read and understand their local laws relating to the use of force, assault and self defence.

realistically thats far to much red tape to be worried about when genuine preservation of law abiding lives is at hand don't you think? lol "oh dear hes threatening to shoot me with that shotgun hes holding! oh well Victorian law says its not provocative enough so I guess i will just wait until he pulls the trigger before I defend my self yay" I mean seriously when you think about it? its just way to tardy

[Gwion]

Supaduke, not to argue about it but i'm not sure you have explained the escalating scale of force sufficiently. Rather than a 'i'm pushed i can punch' scenario, it is a continuum........

............ realistically thats far to much red tape to be worried about when genuine preservation of law abiding lives is at hand don't you think?

Of course it is but you are missing two points:

1/ Having a shotgun pointed at you is threat of lethal force,
2/ If you don't understand the legalities of the use of force, yet take steps to enhance your own capabilities to effectively use force, you are setting yourself up for trouble.

[happyhunter]

.

[Gwion]

What I'm talking about are civilians who have used weapons and extreme violence in a premeditated way to protect themselves against a person or persons that would otherwise have severely harmed or taken their lives. They are forced to commit a serious violent crime as defined by the law, convicted and then immediately released on a suspended sentence because the circumstances leading to the event show their actions to be reasonable. It's not only possible, it's very common.

Just to be pedantic, police are civilians.

Totally agree with what you are saying, though. A reasonable threat to life or safety does not necessarily have to entail a lunatic standing in front of you with a weapon. If you believe, with good reason, that a group or individual intends to do yourself or another serious harm, then you have a case for self defence. It is an extreme situation and will be looked at VERY closely, but if you have no other course of action, then.......

[<<Genesis93>>]

Just to be pedantic, police are civilians.

No.

Civilian = NOT of the armed services.

Last time I checked; Police are armed.....well armed....M&P40, AR15,MP5, I think I spotted a few 45s, bolt action 'sniper' rifles in there with the special types....assorted shotguns.... yep armed.

[Gwion]

Fair enough. I have always equated civilian with non-military and consider police a para-military force.

It also seems that the military prefer to consider civic police to be 'sworn civilians'. Nevertheless, if you prefer; they are not civilians.

[<<Genesis93>>]

Those who are armed by the state authorities for an official purpose I guess....

While the soldiers / military are armed to protect the interest of the nation /the State - the police are armed to uphold the queens peace = protect the individual... although you'd think it was to keep the people in fear and pay up their infringement notices on time

The militarisation of the police however is a different matter....as far as I'm concerned APCs and military grade weapons are NOT the domain of the peace officers (AKA the police)

[pajamatime]

Just to be pedantic, police are civilians.

No.

Civilian = NOT of the armed services.

Last time I checked; Police are armed.....well armed....M&P40, AR15,MP5, I think I spotted a few 45s, bolt action 'sniper' rifles in there with the special types....assorted shotguns.... yep armed.

I thought police are civilians but when they do paperwork they do it as police officers? lol

And maybe military personnel are only military personnel when on base and or engaged in something designated as "military" *shrugs* probably missing some variables but I might be on the right track with it.

[Seik]

Not the drawing a sidearm part... but the watching what you post on the internet part.

Yeah you gotta be careful.

My philosophy is whatever is post is publicly available and will be forever (even if it's supposed to be private or temporary).

Includes PMs, members only sections, "anonymously" contributed content.

If I'm not happy for the world to see it and know it's me I don't post it.

[happyhunter]

.

[Seik]

You just have to be willing to put in the extra effort and learn a little about network technology.

And that's where it falls over for most people. I'm by no means a technical expert but I know from a little experimenting myself that VPN are not as foolproof as the advertising suggests.

Even though the VPN may be doing it's job local browser settings can still bleed identifiable information undoing the whole thing.

The VPN knows your origins as you say.

Providers say they won't release logs but if push came to shove how can you rely on them 100% if it was something critical?

Some locations don't require logs to be kept at all, so in the event they were demanded they couldn't be produced anyway, but again really you're just taking that on good faith with the VPN provider that there are no logs at all.

I'm not discrediting VPNs, I'm sure if set up and used correctly they do exactly exactly what they're supposed to, however if I was using one really I was just be installing the software and trusting that it was working correctly. I wouldn't know how to test/prove that it was working correctly and I'm sure this is the case for the majority of users.

Which brings me back to my original comment, if I'm not happy for the world to see it and know it's me I don't post it.

If you don't post anything compromising you don't have to worry about it. That suits me just fine.