Concealed Carry in Australia

[David Brown]

Sadly the most appropriate reason for having one……is outlawed!

Apparently the stats of women seeking a CC permit, who have DVO's against ex partners shows that there is a considerable number beaten and murdered while waiting for their CC permit.

Kind of makes sense don't it!

[Yelp]

I spoke to a guy 2 weekends ago that has just that a conceal carry permit IN NSW. He had the required trainning and a REAL good reason to have it .

Am I right in assuming it was after some kind of attack/stalker out after him?

[pajamatime]

Good luck and God bless you with that! Oddly enough, apparently back in the 1960s (1970s?) in NSW "self defence" was a legitimate reason for owning a handgun.
Your chances now about the same as a snowball in hell...

You are incorrect sir
Before this occurred in Russia I'm sure people said the same thing lol
http://rt.com/news/206703-russia-guns-self-defense/

Maybe we the people shouldn't be such push overs and pessimists and stand up to the plate

Edit : never say never

[Newdave]

Considering they are going to take levers ,pumps, straight pulls as well as bolt actions with detachable mags. Yeah I don't think we will see CCW in our lifetime.

[David Brown]

If so, I will swear allegiance to the stars and stripes and the star spangled banner will be my anthem.

[Herdsman]

Considering they are going to take levers ,pumps, straight pulls as well as bolt actions with detachable mags. Yeah I don't think we will see CCW in our lifetime.

Where was this they were talking about restricting mags?

[David Brown]

I do not think this is likely, some anti's may talk about it but I doubt that will just pushed through.

[Grrzrr]

Where was this they were talking about restricting mags?

Personally haven't seen it but I don't doubt it. Transparent attempt to ban a huge range of regular A/B longarms with the real motive of 'no guns' IMO.

I don't see them getting anywhere on it though.

[FuzzyM]

I know a bloke who used to have a CC permit in Vic.
He ran one of those big happy warehouses full of the people who have done naughty things.

[wayward]

Fair enough. You can see the accomplice of someone inside bailing the guy up outside can't ya.

[David Brown]

Just another story of good guys and gal…..

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2280375

Both these folk are professional/competitive standard shooters, so the crime picked the wrong guys to start shooting. Good guys won!

[Skadoo]

Good outcome

[David Brown]

These guys have it sorted

http://concealednation.org/2014/08/more ... usinesses/

[as1soldier]

"Seriously, as far as I recall you can carry on your belt a swiss army knife. I wish I could find mine because i would wear it more….until you got to the airport."

Can't even do that in Victoria................see below -

"Controlled Weapons

Controlled weapons are weapons that can be used for legitimate purposes but require regulation because of the possible danger they pose to the community. This category of weapon includes knives that while not considered prohibited weapons, still are a potential danger to the community.

A person must not possess, carry or use a controlled weapon without lawful excuse. Lawful excuse includes:


a) the pursuit of any lawful employment, duty or activity

b) participation in any lawful sport, recreation or entertainment, and

c) the legitimate collection, display or exhibition of weapon.

Lawful excuse does not include for the purpose of self-defence."

Source - http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.as ... t_ID=25574

So for God's sake, don't carry a knife to protect yourself - especially young women walking home alone at night from work, where you may be abducted, raped or murdered which seems to happen a lot lately. Because the society we have created has dictated that this behaviour is ok.
No, no, no - DO NOT PROTECT YOURSELF from all the demented, crazy, perverted meatheads out there who get ridiculously lenient sentences from our pathetically out-dated and piss weak justice system, and then released on bail to re-offend prolifically.........................

[Gwion]

Two reasons why it's not legal to carry weapons for self defense:

1/ Many criminal carry a weapon and use the "self defence" excuse, so removing that lawful reason gives police the means to detain the crim when found in possession of said weapon. You will find police use discretion when applying these laws as to whether the 'offender' is arrested or the 'weapon' is confiscated or a warning is issued. It is a mechanism to disarm criminals.

2/ Weapons for self defense in the hands of untrained individuals in the instance of an attack are a danger to that individual. You are most likely to be injured (or worse) with your own weapon in an attack, unless you are very well trained in it's use and are fully prepared to be aggressively offensive with it. Violent attackers are far more likely to have familiarity with weapons and be far more aggressively offensive than the targets they choose.

The best defence is awareness and prevention. Know your surroundings and what is happening there. Learn what traits and habits and environments are most likely to produce an attack/attacker and avoid them. Always have an exit planned. Hit hard and run fast [stun and run].

If you are going to carry an implement for self defense learn how to use it, have it handy so you don't get caught off guard having to search for it, drill a few "BLITZ" techniques for "stun and run" and what ever you do... never say you carry it for self defense to anyone!!!

[1290]

thats right.... its a disgrace - you cant even carry a pocket knife to cut an apple.

Airports??? Recently flying domestically with the kids, it was during school term so they took their pencil cases etc..... through the xray all crap hit the proverbial and we were pulled over - they each had their school issue safety scissors... the ones that probably do lots of things other than actually cutting, well...

Why is their no discretion, no consideration, just follow the word - scissors bad, must confiscate....like robots.

Another episode at the scanner.... the boss was trying to conceal and carry on her Beretta 92... all hell broke out, security, federal polees, management blah blah.... but it was a 40mm fob on a key ring!! They were adamant the 'handgun' wasnt going on board.....(did in the end) goes to show how brain dead these people are....

[Doz]

Yet more proof that properly trained concealed carry is a good thing to have in society.

An armed society is a polite society.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/uber- ... ago-2015-4

We need to push this further and harder.

I agree. Getting it to Australia however, is another thing. More gun owners = more lobbying and voting potential, and that would be the only way i could ever see it even mildly becoming a reality.

[Doz]

Concealed carry all the way for Australia and for the purposes of self protection...especially for women. That's my opinion.

[pajamatime]

I might start a little fight but the lady shooters take guns more serias then men and they drive a lot of training for new shooters and they take the advanced courses later men are macho and lazy some of the best copition shooter right now are young ladys and are makeing men look bad doing it.

you just like em cause they got boobs...this ain't the battle of the sexes. I have met good and bad either way lol

[1290]

you just like em cause they got boobs...this ain't the battle of the sexes. I have met good and bad either way lol

you got me.....

[pajamatime]

Boobs are more dangerous then guns by a long shot.

Women definitely need a permit for them things. they already have categories for em...

[1290]

I'd say boobs have got more guys into trouble than guns.....

maybe they need their own registry......

[pajamatime]

stand together. we all have a common interest...firearms. Like attracts like.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIpyGQxa2ZY

-Original-
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. - Niemöller

[adam]

Two reasons why it's not legal to carry weapons for self defense:

1/ Many criminal carry a weapon and use the "self defence" excuse, so removing that lawful reason gives police the means to detain the crim when found in possession of said weapon. You will find police use discretion when applying these laws as to whether the 'offender' is arrested or the 'weapon' is confiscated or a warning is issued. It is a mechanism to disarm criminals.

2/ Weapons for self defense in the hands of untrained individuals in the instance of an attack are a danger to that individual. You are most likely to be injured (or worse) with your own weapon in an attack, unless you are very well trained in it's use and are fully prepared to be aggressively offensive with it. Violent attackers are far more likely to have familiarity with weapons and be far more aggressively offensive than the targets they choose.

While that seems like a reasonable argument on the surface it doesn't take much to come undone, or to create answers that will cover these scenarios.

It took me 20 seconds to consider that courses and licenses could be issued to approved people that pass a police check. No different to firearms for other activities such as hunting. That would cover both of those simply. Imagine how much more could be achieved if a proper study and time was taken to find a good answer.

The "weapons" wouldn't even need to be lethal. Why is pepper spray banned? Even if used unlawfully much better than everything else criminals use, such as knives, machete's, syringes, etc.

A shop owner defends their store from crooks with a bat and the police say that it's not an action they condone as it can lead to bad outcomes.

Yet how many times do we see other shop owners who are robbed multiple times in multiple weeks, each one progressing more aggressive. But it's never mentioned that by doing nothing this shop owner may have contributed to becoming a repeat target with worse actions.

How many victims have been victimized by the justice system? How many women raped and murdered because the focus has been on the criminals rights and well being.

The government needs to wake up. Criminals don't play by the same rules as law abiding citizens. All these laws they make only disarm the good - not the crooks who don't care about laws.

There is tonnes of evidence to support people with some form of self defense appliance being more positive than negative - but the government isn't interested in doing real research in the matter to find out how it could be applied in a practical and safe manner. Better that 10 innocents die at the hands of criminals than one criminal is killed by someone defending themselves or their family.

I wonder why.

[Gwion]

^^^
I was just stating the reasons behind the current laws, as outlined to me in the course of my martial arts and security industry training.

It takes more than just a weekend course to safely carry and effectively use a weapon for self defense. If not properly trained, a weapon is more of a liability than an asset.

I am not against weapons for self defense, per se, but i do think that a lot of people have this idea that just having a weapon makes them safer. This is a complete fallacy and a dangerous one at that.

The other sophist argument that i object to is that "Australians have no right to self defense and risk becoming criminals if they defend themselves". This is blatantly untrue and only serves to make those who are ignorant of the true facts more afraid to do what is really required in a self defense situation: which is to deal with it quickly and effectively. Anyone who propagates this fallacy has little idea of how the legal system works; not only in this country but in many other western countries as well.

A right to defend yourself does not automatically mean there will be no criminal investigation or ramifications. Police will investigate and a decision will be made as to if they feel that your response to the threat was reasonable. If they feel that your response was questionable, you will be charged and have to face a trial/hearing to determine your liability and/or possible punishment. The law comes down to a principle known as 'the reasonable mind", ie: how would a reasonable mind react to any given situation and was the response appropriately within those parameters. This is why we have juries, so they can come to a collective decision as to what was reasonable in the situation as outlined in each individual case.

It will never be, "here is a weapon of self defense and you can use it with impunity how so ever you see fit". There will always be consequences and investigations.

So, for your example of the shop keeper doing nothing in response; this is their choice entirely. They have every right within law to use what ever is to had in a reasonable and proportionate response to a perceived threat. All you have to prove for self defense is that you BELIEVED there to be a real and immediate threat to the life or safety of yourself or another person. Once that threat is neutralised you must cease and desist from any further acts of violence or will be facing charges. Ie: if you knock the knife out of an attackers hand with a baseball bat and he runs away but you chase him down and beat him to a bloody pump, you will probably spend a bit of time behind bars because you where no longer acting in self defense but had become the attacker and committed a serious assault. This is NOT saying you cannot defend yourself. It IS saying you have responsibility under law to act in a reasonable manner.

As to the use of non lethal weapons, such as pepper spray, i agree in principle that it would be good for them to be available for use. However, i also see that; if they were freely available; the first time they were used against police or security personnel, it would cause a huge furor.

If weapons were allowed to be carried, i would apply for the licence and permit. Personally i don't think we need them but if others are walking around armed, i would want to be as well.

What i do think we need is more education on how to surveil and assess our environment, build confidence and skills to be proactive when threatened and also to avoid and prevent situations from occurring. Effective "weapons and techniques" (even your fists or elbows can be weapons in this respect, but i am also talking about "tools") also need to be covered but the emphasis is that this is a last line for when AWARENESS & PREVENTION have failed; not a be all, end all solution to the problem.

[bluerob]

Two reasons why it's not legal to carry weapons for self defense:

1/ Many criminal carry a weapon and use the "self defence" excuse, so removing that lawful reason gives police the means to detain the crim when found in possession of said weapon. You will find police use discretion when applying these laws as to whether the 'offender' is arrested or the 'weapon' is confiscated or a warning is issued. It is a mechanism to disarm criminals.

2/ Weapons for self defense in the hands of untrained individuals in the instance of an attack are a danger to that individual. You are most likely to be injured (or worse) with your own weapon in an attack, unless you are very well trained in it's use and are fully prepared to be aggressively offensive with it. Violent attackers are far more likely to have familiarity with weapons and be far more aggressively offensive than the targets they choose.

While that seems like a reasonable argument on the surface it doesn't take much to come undone, or to create answers that will cover these scenarios.

It took me 20 seconds to consider that courses and licenses could be issued to approved people that pass a police check. No different to firearms for other activities such as hunting. That would cover both of those simply. Imagine how much more could be achieved if a proper study and time was taken to find a good answer.

The "weapons" wouldn't even need to be lethal. Why is pepper spray banned? Even if used unlawfully much better than everything else criminals use, such as knives, machete's, syringes, etc.

A shop owner defends their store from crooks with a bat and the police say that it's not an action they condone as it can lead to bad outcomes.

Yet how many times do we see other shop owners who are robbed multiple times in multiple weeks, each one progressing more aggressive. But it's never mentioned that by doing nothing this shop owner may have contributed to becoming a repeat target with worse actions.

How many victims have been victimized by the justice system? How many women raped and murdered because the focus has been on the criminals rights and well being.

The government needs to wake up. Criminals don't play by the same rules as law abiding citizens. All these laws they make only disarm the good - not the crooks who don't care about laws.

There is tonnes of evidence to support people with some form of self defense appliance being more positive than negative - but the government isn't interested in doing real research in the matter to find out how it could be applied in a practical and safe manner. Better that 10 innocents die at the hands of criminals than one criminal is killed by someone defending themselves or their family.

I wonder why.

When a government (who is supposed to be doing what we say) that is constantly trying to remove firearms from law abiding and decent citizens and generally making life hard for gun owners is what you need to wonder about.

The money that is wasted on ridiculous senate hearings, buy backs etc would be far better spent by handing that money out to ranges to improve facilities. Common sense left politics in around 1985 I think (NSW anyways). When Unsworth lost.

I support concealed carry, based on selection criteria (ie you must be a regular competition shooter, not the ones who do 4 matches to keep their Licence) and the correct level of training.

The guys that I know in my pistol club who also support this, don't see this as an opportunity to "pack heat or tool up." It's simply a way to defend you and your family against crap bags.

I've got no interest in patrolling the streets nor. That's for the Police. But, when the Police are 30 mins away and a freak high on ice is smashing down my door, I need to protect my family (oh, and me too). Sure, I'd sooner not resort to a potential criminal charge, but, I'd sooner spend 3 years in jail than 40 mins at my wife's funeral because I couldn't protect her - the Police are 30 mins away, remember? Or I could do the classic "I've got a burglar high on ice smashing my door down, screaming he's going to kill me, rape my wife and play with the kids. Take your time though, as I've shot him and called and ambulance." They'd be here in 5 mins then, with every car in the district on its way. Funny that...

We have trained volunteer emergency responders who save lives. Same thing applies to concealed carry, with training.

[David Brown]

2/ Weapons for self defense in the hands of untrained individuals in the instance of an attack are a danger to that individual. You are most likely to be injured (or worse) with your own weapon in an attack, unless you are very well trained in it's use and are fully prepared to be aggressively offensive with it. Violent attackers are far more likely to have familiarity with weapons and be far more aggressively offensive than the targets they choose.

This is a flawed argument.

If you are referring to a little old lady with a baseball bat, or for that matter most of us, the thug is likely to use the weapon against the victim, even me (able 46yr old), but less likely my son. My son on the other hand is a multi dan black belt and can use a bat.

A properly selected firearm, not a small snub nose revolver, in granny's hands or mine is very much a force equaliser. Add a laser and the thug knows the game is up. That is the point. Then nobody needs to get shot, unless the criminal is really stupid.

[Title_II]

2/ Weapons for self defense in the hands of untrained individuals in the instance of an attack are a danger to that individual. You are most likely to be injured (or worse) with your own weapon in an attack, unless you are very well trained in it's use and are fully prepared to be aggressively offensive with it. Violent attackers are far more likely to have familiarity with weapons and be far more aggressively offensive than the targets they choose.

Except it doesn't work that way. The majority of people who carry in the US have no firearm training. Yet they overwhelmingly prevail against attackers, armed attackers, and attackers armed with firearms.

In January 2013 Obama penned 23 executive orders supporting policies to ban guns. The capstone order was requesting CDC prepare a report on "gun violence" (whatever the heck that is) to support banning guns. There was a lot of fanfare about the proposal. When the report was ready, there was ZERO media attention to it and Obama did not publicize its publication. Because, despite having an anti-gun bias, the facts supported all facets of gun ownership so overwhelmingly that it was not possible to fully twist them to the opposite conclusion in a believable manner.

Here is the report:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priori ... d-violence

"A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous
or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gunwielding
crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual
defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the
crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have
found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims
compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies"

Further, people that resist forcible felonies (robbery, rape, assault) have better outcomes than those who don't resist. People that resist with ANY weapon have even better outcome, and people that resist with firearms have the best outcomes.

So much for "just give him what he wants."

[KWhorenet]

Lucky for you Title_II that your politicians and media (media being our major unofficial political party with most power) aren't receiving the same schooling in the art of bullshittery as ours then.

[Gwion]

Title. I'll take a look at the link when i get time.

My main point from the section you picked was that with any weapon to hand, the 'defender' has to be willing and able to actually use it effectively.

I'll be looking to see if they took into account those that 'had a weapon and didn't use it' (or didn't get a chance to because they were fumbling around for it).

I totally agree that "acting" in a 'situation' will most certainly effect a more positive outcome and a firearm would most certainly equalise most situations. A certain attitude or mind set is required for that, however, and most crims look for targets that don't have that mind set or attitude. Most situations can be avoided by simply being a harder target. This comes down to even just being more visibly aware of what's happening around you.

As for untrained and unvetted people carrying firearms for self defense in Australia; it's not something i'm particularly keen to see. If there was some mandatory training etc, involved, then i'd be more comfortable with it. On the other hand, establishing some sort of 'elite' class who are able to carry is rather pointless. as the most vulnerable would never comply with such regs.

Not having a go at anyone; just discussing the topic.

Cheers mate.