Self defence petition

[MeccaOz]

Sign it if it's your cup of tea/coffee/beer/whiskey/soda

http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/the-australian-government-allow-citizens-the-right-to-defend-themselves-with-guns

[WesleySnipes]

You would honestly think someone petitioning the Australian government would at bare minimum proof read their work. And by no means am I being a Nazi, but really? How is the petition's cause going to get taken seriously when the author couldn't even bother using correct spelling, punctuation etc?

And it's kind of a let down, because all of the points raised are excellent and do need to be taken seriously.

[Guliver]

This is exactly what we don't need, no guns for self-defence please.

Look up propaganda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

"These laws ONLY BENEFIT CRIMINALS, it is time for a change. Why can bikies and gangs can roam the streets, armed with firearms but the average, hard-working Australian cant legally defends themselves with a firearm?" --------------------they can't just as any other Australian citizen, the laws do not benefit criminals.

[Warrigul]

This is exactly what we don't need, no guns for self-defence please.

Look up propaganda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

"These laws ONLY BENEFIT CRIMINALS, it is time for a change. Why can bikies and gangs can roam the streets, armed with firearms but the average, hard-working Australian cant legally defends themselves with a firearm?" --------------------they can't just as any other Australian citizen, the laws do not benefit criminals.

A law abiding citizen won't arm or defend themselves against criminal acts as they are indeed- law abiding.

A criminal however will not take any notice of a law that says they aren't allowed to use weapons or commit acts of harm.

Hence the only person who could be seen to benefit from a law prohibiting the use of a weapon is the person who won't respect said law so therefore the only person who stands to benefit from such a law is indeed a criminal(now being the sole party that is armed).

Simple really.

[gazza]

Why the f*** didn't they get that proof read.

[ChicagoTed]

she is aiming at his "equipment"in the picture

[Aster]

Who is this character?
This is a load of see are aye pee.
Mathew, please leave the serious business to the gown ups, GO BACK TO YOUR XBOX yes I know you r a play-a..did I spell rite?.

1. WE DONT WANT FIREARMS 'FOR SELF DEFENCE'.
2. WE ARE NOT PREVENTED FROM USING FIREARMS FOR SELF DEFENCE.

Think about the above for a while.
There is no law that specifies which particular inanimate object you can or can not use to defend yourself and your family.
Should you need to defend yourself the courts of law will decide your destiny. Note a particular 'public identity' DID in fact use a firearm to 'defend' himself and the courts decided he was in the right to take the life of another with a firearm.

What we want is to be able to purchase and possess a firearm WITHOUT A 'REASON' or 'NEED'. Should we then store it to never actually use it OR take it to the range once in a year or every weekend OR hunt game or ferals with it OR buy it as an investment OR for whatever reason it should be up to us.... provided we are a law abiding bona fide member of the community THEN THERE SHOULD BE NO REASON FOR US NOT TO HAVE THIS RIGHT....

We DO NOT want to buy a firearm FOR SELF DEFENSE. No law in this nation will allow a firearm to be purchased for the express purpose of killing or maiming another (Thats reserved for security industry, law enforcement and defence forces) ie. no purchase for self defence.

What we need to is petition for the removal of the PTA system and REGISTRATION.
If you're licensed for handguns or longarms, YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN SCRUTINISED for firearm possession.

[WesleySnipes]

1290,

Why aren't you the Prime Minister of this country? Serious question.

[1290]

Simple.

Our nation has been hijacked by the one group known as the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party...aka the ruling elite of Australia aka the federal puppetry of world zion.

That's one group, what you think, you have a choice?

and importantly I am not a member. Never will be.

If I was PM though (which is a mythical role anyway) things would be a LOT different. Starting with I would reinstate (reiterate) the GG as the true head of state, due respect for the role not the present chief ceremonial letter cheer leader... (PM is not our leader peeps)

You got me started.....


And if you're not in that particular club you're not in.

[MeccaOz]

Simple.

Our nation has been hijacked by the one group known as the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party...aka the ruling elite of Australia aka the federal puppetry of world zion.

That's one group, what you think, you have a choice?

and importantly I am not a member. Never will be.

If I was PM though (which is a mythical role anyway) things would be a LOT different. Starting with I would reinstate (reiterate) the GG as the true head of state, due respect for the role not the present chief ceremonial letter cheer leader... (PM is not our leader peeps)

You got me started.....


And if you're not in that particular club you're not in.

Needed to be said mate, and your dead on !

[WesleySnipes]

Simple.

Our nation has been hijacked by the one group known as the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party...aka the ruling elite of Australia aka the federal puppetry of world zion.

That's one group, what you think, you have a choice?

and importantly I am not a member. Never will be.

If I was PM though (which is a mythical role anyway) things would be a LOT different. Starting with I would reinstate (reiterate) the GG as the true head of state, due respect for the role not the present chief ceremonial letter cheer leader... (PM is not our leader peeps)

You got me started.....


And if you're not in that particular club you're not in.

We don't have a choice, and it seems like America and other countries don't have one either. The 2 party system tends to produce parties that end up so alike that you end up only voting for the better of two evils. Both of which are effectively shoving the country down the toilet in the long run by stripping its people of their liberties, and the non stop train of legislation and bureaucratic bullsh*t in order for 'safety'.

The liberal party alone has strayed so far from the true definition of liberal it would be hilarious if it weren't so serious.

And personally I would like Australia to become a Republic. We have no need to go down the UK's route as a country, which we inevitably will. I've been there several times and it was possibly the worst example of a developed country I've ever seen. If you think our country is bad...

[Chronos]

Who is this character?

google tells us he's a young bloke, what school he goes to and a few other things like he is a fan of COD

for the record i agree 1290, i couldn't care less about CC and OC laws or self defense laws for that matter, if your family is under threat you will do whatever you deem necessary to protect them and worry about the consequences later

i'd rather we secure our current sport, our hunting culture and make governments understand we pose no risk to anyone but the rabbits, foxes, pigs, goats and deer that dwell in out public and private lands. and if we want to go put 100 rounds down range for fun we will

Chronos

[1290]

The issue isn't whether we should be a republic or not, its the 'government' - the legislature, executive and judiciary to recognise the basics, our constitution as a starting point... property rights then go from there (not talking Mabo here!).

Before we worry ourselves as to whether we want to be a republic or continue to be a dominion of the City of London... we need to sort our S%$t out here....

[WesleySnipes]

Chronos,

Oh dear... At least his heart is in the right place... More or less.

Instead of saying WE WANT GUNZ FOR SELF DEFENSE, he should of used common sense and asked for the basic human right of self protection via any means necessary. It almost sounds as if he wants to own a gun and carry it everywhere just to be cool, like it's a gimmick.

[1290]

He's probably not old enough to own a 'gunz' for sport...

I hope the media doesnt jump onto this petition...
He doesnt speak for shooters and LAFO, thats for sure.

(((come on guys, get rid of his mug^^))

[Chronos]

He's probably not old enough to own a 'gunz' for sport...

I hope the media doesnt jump onto this petition...
He doesnt speak for shooters and LAFO, thats for sure.

(((come on guys, get rid of his mug^^))

his name is on the petition, he linked from his facebook page and this is his profile pic and as such is public for reproduction, i can get rid of it if you want but it's important people represent themselves honestly and that may include his age

let me know and i will get rid of it but the quote may have to modified too

Chronos

[1290]

No no, get rid of 'him'
Can you sort that for us....

[handofcod]

Home investions with the intention of murder, abduction, etc where the perpetrator is unknown to the victim is extremely rare in Australia. Break ins are by contrast quite common and I know of several people that have been robbed repeatedly but almost always when no one is home.

I don't think I could ever justify shooting some drop kick after a quick hit if I busted them in my house (not that I'd be accommodating mind you). And if it was violence they were after then I highly doubt I'd ever have a chance to get to any sort of firearm in time to use it.

It's kind of a moot point to be honest because the real criminals that everyone is up in arms (no pun intended) about, the ones that are armed, aren't ripping off peoples TVs. They are involved in fairly lucrative drug syndicates, stand over operations and other rackets and if one of them is knocking on your door I highly doubt you are the sort to be claiming the moral high ground.

[WesleySnipes]

Home investions with the intention of murder, abduction, etc where the perpetrator is unknown to the victim is extremely rare in Australia. Break ins are by contrast quite common and I know of several people that have been robbed repeatedly but almost always when no one is home.

I don't think I could ever justify shooting some drop kick after a quick hit if I busted them in my house (not that I'd be accommodating mind you). And if it was violence they were after then I highly doubt I'd ever have a chance to get to any sort of firearm in time to use it.

It's kind of a moot point to be honest because the real criminals that everyone is up in arms (no pun intended) about, the ones that are armed, aren't ripping off peoples TVs. They are involved in fairly lucrative drug syndicates, stand over operations and other rackets and if one of them is knocking on your door I highly doubt you are the sort to be claiming the moral high ground.

As I won't have a questionnaire on the door for a criminal to fill out before they enter my house with criminal intent, I definitely won't be gambling with my life or the life of my family on the good intentions and moral righteousness of a criminal. I also won't be thinking if it's highly unlikely or not, the fact is it happens, and you and your family might be the victims. However unlikely it is is irrelevant.

As you said, they may of just had a hit of whatever drug, people under the influence can often be extremely violent and unpredictable. To a smackhead who is high on cocaine it is reasonable to assume they aren't inside your house to be friendly, so you have to act accordingly. Defending yourself and your family is an inalienable civil right.

[1290]

Your response must be proportional to the threat.

[MeccaOz]

Im in the middle, if some d**khead broke in and i was home, i'd be hard pressed to end his life. BUT if for one second I thought my family was in danger, well s**t just real.

[WesleySnipes]

Im in the middle, if some d**khead broke in and i was home, i'd be hard pressed to end his life. BUT if for one second I thought my family was in danger, well s**t just real.

I don't see how that is in the middle? That IS the point. If a young teenager breaks into your house unarmed looking to steal your toaster and you have time to observe this, deadly force is not justifiable. Sound simple? But in reality it isn't, and in the heat of the moment all you know is that someone is in your house and could potentially cause harm to you or your family, and it is up to you to use justifiable force to stop the threat. What is justifiable and what is a threat is extremely hard to quantify when you're in that position, and at the end of the day they are in your house, and your family's lives may be in danger so it's a pretty slippery slope. At the end of the day no one wants to take a life and deadly force should always be the last option after all others are exhausted.

[MeccaOz]

Im in the middle, if some d**khead broke in and i was home, i'd be hard pressed to end his life. BUT if for one second I thought my family was in danger, well s**t just real.

I don't see how that is in the middle? That IS the point. If a young teenager breaks into your house unarmed looking to steal your toaster and you have time to observe this, deadly force is not justifiable. Sound simple? But in reality it isn't, and in the heat of the moment all you know is that someone is in your house and could potentially cause harm to you or your family, and it is up to you to use justifiable force to stop the threat. What is justifiable and what is a threat is extremely hard to quantify when you're in that position, and at the end of the day they are in your house, and your family's lives may be in danger so it's a pretty slippery slope. At the end of the day no one wants to take a life and deadly force should always be the last option after all others are exhausted.

Without dragging up my past, I have been in a similar situation as the hypothetical we are talking about. I assume everyone is different, in my case, with adrenaline running full on, we got to the fisticuffs stage, and then the person took off and left, but for a second or two there I honestly thought I was going to have to take that extra step, I didnt want to so Im glad I didnt have to. What Im saying is justifying your actions is alot easier in the moment than it is in a court room. I doubt you can convey to a jury the intense desire to survive and have your family survive when your the only thing standing between him and them, the jury wasnt there, and that I think is why people have a hard time with the legalities of self defence, yes you can pick apart every action taken in a court room, was it right, maybe, maybe not .. but trying to convey that it was your only choice because it was a split second decision that needed to be made right then and there is the hard part. It's to much to put on the victim

[WesleySnipes]

Im in the middle, if some d**khead broke in and i was home, i'd be hard pressed to end his life. BUT if for one second I thought my family was in danger, well s**t just real.

I don't see how that is in the middle? That IS the point. If a young teenager breaks into your house unarmed looking to steal your toaster and you have time to observe this, deadly force is not justifiable. Sound simple? But in reality it isn't, and in the heat of the moment all you know is that someone is in your house and could potentially cause harm to you or your family, and it is up to you to use justifiable force to stop the threat. What is justifiable and what is a threat is extremely hard to quantify when you're in that position, and at the end of the day they are in your house, and your family's lives may be in danger so it's a pretty slippery slope. At the end of the day no one wants to take a life and deadly force should always be the last option after all others are exhausted.

Without dragging up my past, I have been in a similar situation as the hypothetical we are talking about. I assume everyone is different, in my case, with adrenaline running full on, we got to the fisticuffs stage, and then the person took off and left, but for a second or two there I honestly thought I was going to have to take that extra step, I didnt want to so Im glad I didnt have to. What Im saying is justifying your actions is alot easier in the moment than it is in a court room. I doubt you can convey to a jury the intense desire to survive and have your family survive when your the only thing standing between him and them, the jury wasnt there, and that I think is why people have a hard time with the legalities of self defence, yes you can pick apart every action taken in a court room, was it right, maybe, maybe not .. but trying to convey that it was your only choice because it was a split second decision that needed to be made right then and there is the hard part. It's to much to put on the victim

You're exactly right. The fact is no one wants to take a life, but if there's a threat to your family you have to neutralise it. It's not up to anyone to tell you what you should of done or what other alternatives you could of used. There was a threat, you acted pumped with adrenaline to stop it in any way necessary. Better to be judged by 12, then carried by 6 I believe is the saying?

And I'm glad you lived to fight another day so to speak. That incident could of gone any which way immediately and you had the right to defend yourself accordingly.

[becks]

she is aiming at his "equipment"in the picture

Sounds like a winning strategy to me

[Bourt]

TBH I can't see many people feeling sympathy for a home-invader getting shot in the junk.

And on the plus side, you didn't have to kill anyone. Justice!