O'Reilly's in Thornbury robbed earlier today.

[Wombat]

Had to dig out the details of the dealer I bought from that got killed, even sadder than I remembered, the motive was theft of a single pistol.

August 22 1993.

A man charged with the murder of three people in a Melbourne outer suburban gun shop at the weekend was remanded in custody after a brief appearance in court yesterday.

Magistrate Bryan Clothier remanded John Paul Lascano, 24, of East Kew, a Melbourne eastern suburb, to appear again in the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on November 16 for a committal mention.

Lascano is charged with the murder of gun shop owner Richard Paul Taylor, 43, his daughter Samantha, 14, and a family friend, Kevin John Simpkins, 36, in Mr Taylor's shop, Taylor Firearms, in Gamsworthy Street, Springvale, an outer south-eastern suburb, on Saturday.

He also is charged with the attempted arson of the shop.

[sungazer]

I don't know how feasible it would be in the cities but one of the stores in cairns has plexiglass(?) Doors that ya gotta be buzzed thru. If they don't know you they will sometimes ask for your license before they open up.

Thats what the South Morang store did after there robbery. An airlock of two doors only one can be open at a time and the one into the store needs to be buzzed in. Both Steel bars think like a Goal and bullet proof glass. A bit late for the first robbery but will certainly deter a new attempt. Also every gun is locked to the wall unless being shown to customer.

Clayton firearms should do something similar they have too many guns readily available to make a snatch and grab. They have the second room with a door out to the street they should make that door the entry way with similar airlock system. For them it would also be a way to get customers to walk past more stuff for sale, rather than it be in an unseen corner.

[juststarting]

So cash deserves an armed presence because? People could get papercuts?

Yeah, doesn't make sense if you put it that way, but this is a wrong way to put it. Using the same logic, a gun shop could also hire armed guards... This is not what we are talking about though.

[juststarting]

I am back, Supaduke! I had my evening RedBull and I am ready to talk s**t.

So, I agree with you, 110% that guns are things, like all other things - it's not worth it, not to me, not to you, not to 99% of people. Absolutely, but it's never about 'things'. It is always about your personal safety.

This is sort of the crux of the argument:

Protecting life is a different matter so don't go down the home invaders comparison either.

Is it self-defence in general that we are talking about? I think so (it doesn't need to be home invasion). Should a person have a fundamental right to defend themselves with whatever means available and do so legally, I think so.

It's always about individual safety first.

In a robbery, a victim needs to have their personal safety compromised first, one needs to be terrorised and afraid, before they agree to hand over their property, in exchange for well being/surviving/health. So it's never about things, first. First, it's about personal safety or as you said "protecting life" and this is the underlying theme here, the right to self defence...

I would pick personal well being, in exchange for my things, but I would also pick defence option over being a victim. Would I, who knows? But I should certainly have it as an option. So with that in mind, are you saying that you should:

• Be a victim and rely on chance or on violent robbers being nice?; or
• Have an option to defend yourself?

We can talk about training, mindset, abilities, capabilities, accountability, consequences, but all of these are secondary to accepting, either victimhood; or right to self defence.

[Baitlayer]

As a former prison Officer trained and qualified in the use of lethal force,I can tell you there are very strict guidelines on the use of your firearm.And the onus is on you to justify that use.Basically preventing certain loss of life is the only acceptable reason and you have to demonstrate that was the case.I would assume that similar rules are in place for professional armed guards.Maybe Supaduke could confirm this.Loss of property would be unlikely to be acceptable.I would think that armed guards would only deter villains not willing to take life to acheive their ends.Personally,I would not draw my weapon on a crim with a drawn weapon whose mental state is likely to be unstable.In the end, in that situation, to act or not is a personal decision but you better be awfully sure of your ground because you will be called to account.Ask any police officer.

[juststarting]

Again, we're driving into solution mode.

Like I said...

We can talk about training, mindset, abilities, capabilities, accountability, consequences, but all of these are secondary to accepting, either victimhood; or right to self defence.

And you don't have to draw your gun on anyone, ever, but you should have a choice.

[Baitlayer]

There is also the point that if you are dealing with smart forward planning offenders, if you are armed,you will be identified as a threat and therefore a target to neutralised.just a thought.

[juststarting]

Victim mentality.

[juststarting]

Hey, by the way, all very valid and correct points, but you're skirting around my question.

So, Baitlayer, are you saying that civilians should not have a legal right to self defence with a firearm?

[Oldbloke]

Slightly off topic.GIF (10.97 KiB) Viewed 6351 times

[Supaduke]

Ok,

Similar to prison officers, Armed guards can only condider lethal force if there is an immediate threat to life.

Training and statistics prove that if the robbers have the drop on you, the safest choice is compliance and not escalating the situation. Robbers are armed to ensure compliance not kill. Killing starts when people get heroic.

Having an armed guard at a shop, just for one shift per day , would cost north of 100k per annum. Not viable for most shops.

Cash escort guards are armed as a deterrent. They are out in the street and much more vulnerable to opportunistic attacks. Again training and statistics point to compliance and non escalation in the event of an armed robbery.

It's not about being a victim, it's about survival. Let me offer this scenario (and I know it's unlikely).

JS, you work in IT. Let's say your office is rolled by 4 bandits armed with pistols. For the sake of our scenario you are armed. All the robbers want is your laptops. Would you be prepared to die or be severely injured for that laptop?, would you risk the life or health of your colleagues for that laptop? The laptop would probably have a greater monetary value than a pistol.

And in a similar vein, let's assume you are not armed but one of your colleagues is. At this point the situation is frightening but relatively calm, would you appreciate your colleague starting a gunfight in your office? Do you know his training or mental state?

Armed robbery is not a personal attack, they want your stuff, not to kill people. Compliance is what they want to ensure a smooth 'transaction' as it were.

I understand that people don't like having stuff taken from them at gunpoint, I understand that people would like to not have that happen, I understand that being armed seems like a good solution.

I also understand that people do stupid sh1t in a stressful situation, that many people who are armed do not train regularly or properly, that in moments of stress any training can go right out the window.

If I was a bystander in that shop with my kids I would not be happy if the assistant started shooting at the robbers. I wouldn't be thinking "wow, my hero".

An armed robbery is not the same as a personal attack where someone's objective is to hurt or kill you.

I will end it here it's getting a bit wordy.

[juststarting]

Nope, I'd sit back, pack the laptop and even offer them a box or a bag to carry it in, maybe make them a coffe, but only if they were nice. I'm not arguing or advocating for senseless use of violence.

Same scenario and someone is getting beaten up, kicked and stomped, then yes, I'd advocate overwhelming and disproportionate force. To immediately resolve the situation and serve as a deterrent. Being robbed is a direct threat on life, that's kind of the alternative of not handing over your stuff. That's why it's a robbery and not a burglary.

You're skirting around the question though. Should a person be allowed to defend themselves with a gun, when they are attacked.

Nowhere have I said that you should indiscriminately shoot or be a hero or put other lives in danger. And nowhere have I said that there should be no accountability or consequences. Also, I'm not talking about concealed or open carry. All of those things are solutions... There can be education, training, qualifications and legal deterrents (accountability).

I am simply advocating for legal means of self defence (castle doctrine) with a firearm. Everything else is a secondary discussion.

[Gwion]

I can't weigh in here cause my laptop keeps bugging out and this phone is not good for lengthy discussions.

[Gwion]

However. The reasonable use of force is legally considered along a continuum. It is not an all or nothing deal. I wont go into the "should we be allowed to use a firearm" thing too much but given the lack of people understanding around their current legal rights around the use of force I'd certainly be questioning weather adding a bang bang into the mix is a good idea.

[Gwion]

Look up: use of force continuum.
People not understanding this concept is usually where things go bad for them in a legal sence after an all or nothing "self defence" event.

[Supaduke]

I don't have an issue with people defending themselves. I can see the benefits of an armed society. I just worry about the lowest common denominator. Packing heat and always on the look out to save the day.

Not sure there is really a 'right' answer.

Should people be allowed to carry firearms for protection? Yes

Should everyone be allowed to carry? No, some people are simply too stupid for the responsibility.

How stupid is the cut-off? I don't know

Is that a fair system, why can some people defend themselves and others can't ? Because life isn't fair and some of you are stupid.

[Gwion]

I don't have an issue with people defending themselves. I can see the benefits of an armed society. I just worry about the lowest common denominator. Packing heat and always on the look out to save the day.

Not sure there is really a 'right' answer.

Should people be allowed to carry firearms for protection? Yes

Should everyone be allowed to carry? No, some people are simply too stupid for the responsibility.

How stupid is the cut-off? I don't know

Is that a fair system, why can some people defend themselves and others can't ? Because life isn't fair and some of you are stupid.

Hahaha..... that would be close to summing up my thoughts as well.

[Gwion]

Slightly off topic.GIF

Classic....
I'm stealing it!

[juststarting]

Supaduke, yeah, so we're kinda on the same page. I actually don't know how I feel about 'carry' in Australia. Inside property, definitely. Outside, not sure our society (AU) needs it now.

Lowest common denominator freaking scares me.

OB, original topic got exhausted, so we moved on, keep up

[Gwion]

So. In a retail environment where profits aren't high, it is probably unreasonable to expect owners to go to the expence of armed guards and definitely unreasonable to expect staff to defend stock with life and limb.

Adding armed response capability to a retail outlet would likeley result in two things happening:
1/ smart, professional crooks will look for ways to gain access after hours.
2/ violent and oportunistic crooks who have watched too many heist movies and smoked too much ice will just waltz in and shoot first.

Arming people on-site is not a total solution and i question wether it is even a part of a total solution.

There's a general priciple in personal protection: crooks look for easy targets so just be a harder target than the next person and they will choose an easier victim.
Not always easy to do, especially when the target is a regulated product with few sources. In reality, if someone is determined to take something, they will find a way to take it, no matter what measures you put in place for prevention and protection. If you are under threat, just give them the object they are after. Sux arse but beats the hell out of escalating the situation. If the threat is immediate and all they want is to harm you or another, then open the biggest can of whoop arse you can muster and hope for the best. Look for your exit. Look for ways to neutralise or de-escalate..... it's called situational awareness and proportional response.

[Gamerancher]

I've been exposed to a lot of firearms users all over Australia and overseas. Had many interactions with blokes that I don't believe should own a slingshot let alone a firearm. When these types of individuals start harping on about personal carry, I slowly move away from them.........

[juststarting]

I think proportional response is bulls**t, Gwion.

[Gwion]

I think proportional response is bulls**t, Gwion.

And this is why YOU shouldn't have a side arm.
People need to understand what the term means and how it works.
Proportional response along the continuum is how self defence laws work across much of the western world. Understanding the continuum is the way you avoid going tata and becoming bubba's bitch when using force to protect yourself and others.

You can use lethal force only while lethal force is the current threat, while also continually attempting to neutralise and de-escalate the situation.
This, in law, is known as being 'reasonable'.

[sungazer]

It looks like there is a general consensus though that using guns to protect property is not the first option as it may only escalate things. However when we are in say the Sydney cafe with a Jihardist then that would be a different story. Thankfully in Australia we really dont have a lot of crooks that want to do personal harm to anybody. Most of them know if they do get caught its just going to be a longer sentence.

[juststarting]

I've recently read an article about someone, where they shared their history, how she (person I was reading about) and her friend were raped at gun point during home invasion robbery. While her husband was tied to a chair and forced to watch.

Whats proportional, in that situation, Gwion? This is not a hypothetical, it's an event that happened and happens often. Surely he didn't meant to kill her, he looooved her (and her friend).

Proportional response is bulls**t, Gwion. Or youth throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at police, oh, it's just a riot... But what happens when one of those things actually hit their mark?

Proportional response is a myth.

[juststarting]

its just going to be a longer sentence.

LOL. Like that fella who used a cop's head as a soccer ball, ye? Looooong sentence. Like really long. Like on parole and then released without conviction kind of long. Ye? This is Andrew's Victoria, mate.

[juststarting]

And this is why YOU shouldn't have a side arm.

Not exactly, this is why nobody is allowed to own firearms for personal protection. Because proportional force is bulls**t and everyone knows it.

You wake up and some junky is standing over your bed, masturbating (guessing, in Tasmania you guys are used to it), your first thought ain't going to be to offer him a cuppa and a wet wipe. Because, proportional force is a myth

[sungazer]

That is seriously wrong. I thought that any crime against the Emergency services automatically incurred an upgraded charge and sentence. It certainly should Andrews always talks tough he is such a wanker though. I was really pissed when he tore up those construction contracts and all the money that went with it in penalties then the sweat-heart deals he did with the companies to charge more on the next project. Way to spend the taxpayers money wisely.

[Gwion]

Juststarting.
No, mate. All your subsequent posts just emphasise that you (along with most) do not understand what proportional force means or what the force continuum is and how it works. If you did understand it you would know that you have every right to use proportional lethal force; you just don't have the right to carry any tool for 'self defence'. This is primarily to prevent thugs carrying weapons for offensive purposes and claiming carriage for self defence when stopped or caught by the popo.

[Gwion]

By the way. I trained kung fu as a full time student for 3 years in the 90s (total 24years). Ran personal protection courses for the public. Trained security crowd control. Worked CC in King St, Sth Yarra and was sole CC in a dodgy strip pub in the near eastern suburbs. I have some experience with the legal use of force.