Excellent firearms related tips

[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.