• Welcome to Life In The Wilderness

    You are currently viewing the site as a guest and some content may not be available to you.

    Registration is quick and easy and will give you full access to the site and allow you to ask questions or make comments and join in on the conversation. If you would like to join then please Register

Gun Control & Anti-self Defence Laws In Australia. Why?

Keith

Very Addicted
Messages
1,630
Points
780
Age
73
Welfare_of_the_people.jpg

Gun Control & Anti-Self Defence Laws in Australia. Why?


I have a lot of things going through my mind right now, so please excuse me if this post seems a little staggered.

First of all I think we need to establish the fact that the Government does not give a damn about the welfare & safety of its citizens. This is important, because the safety of its citizens is the reason given for the government’s gun control measures & its self defence legislation.

Tyranny2.jpg


Fact: In Australia women are being attacked, assaulted or killed every 2 minutes.

Fact: The Australian government has cut funding to women’s help centers & some of these centers have had to close completely.

Fact: It is illegal in Australia to purchase, carry or use ANYTHING for the sole purpose of self defence or the defence of one’s family. No guns, no pepper sprays, no tasers, no attacker marker paint sprays.

Fact: If you do defend yourself or your family you could be charged with an offence. Recently a farmer defending his family in a home invasion where the predator was armed with a knife & a wooden baton, the farmer used an unloaded rifle to scare & disarm the attacker. The farmer was charged with firearms offences & both he & his wife had their gun licenses suspended & their guns confiscation.

Fact: Home invasions, assaults, attacks, rapes, murder & stabbings appear to be on the increase. Almost every day now there are reports of one or the other.

Fact: If at least some of these people who were attacked had been carrying some form of device that enabled them to defend themselves, then they would have survived & the attacker/s would have been stopped & possibly arrested.

Fact: On more than one occasion in Terrorist attacks in Australia the police were ordered not to kill or arrest the Terrorist when they were able to do so. This allowed the Terrorist to proceed & ended in the death of innocent citizens.

Fact: There was NO coronal enquiry into the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania which was used by the government to order a confiscation of certain commonly used guns from law abiding citizens. There is no proof that Martin Bryant was in fact the shooter. There is no proof that if Bryant was the shooter that he acted alone. There is no proof that the government did not orchestrate this massacre just so they could implement the confiscation of law abiding licensed citizen’s guns. There IS proof that the alleged rifle used in these shootings was in fact in police hands before the shootings. This rifle had previously been handed in to the police. So if Bryant was the shooter, who gave him this rifle?

So let’s look at this objectively & sensibly so we can better try & understand what is going on here. What is likely to happen if citizens were allowed to carry & use certain items for defence? Well firstly there would be less innocent people getting robbed, assaulted, raped & murdered. On the other hand we could expect there to be some innocent people injured or even possibly killed due to some nervous people “jumping the gun”, defending themselves when in fact the would be attacker was in fact an innocent person. I think personally that this would still involve less deaths than if we were not allowed to defend ourselves, AND people would NEED to gain a better understanding of the new laws involving self defence. People would need to approach other people with caution & understand the possible danger. IF a person were to “jump the gun” on an innocent person, then it is perfectly reasonable for that person to have their rights to carrying such a protective device revoked.

I think it very reasonable to expect that the cases of home invasions would decrease considerably. Right now criminals know that the majority of Australian homes are in fact defenseless. We are not allowed legally to use guns, pepper sprays, tasers, or anything else expressly for the purpose of defending our families or our homes. If we do decide to defend ourselves or our families then we are not allowed to use excessive force. How can anyone possibly be expected to judge what is excessive force?! Is the government saying that if you are threatened by an intruder with a knife, then you too must arm yourself with a knife & get into a knife fight?! If the intruder is unarmed but bigger & stronger than you are must you defend yourself with your bare hands?! Do you think this sounds reasonable?

I think the solution here lies in education & training. If we were allowed to carry guns on the streets or keep guns at home for defence, then there should be training & education involved in the process of evaluation for ownership & approval.

So, if the government’s purpose is not for the safety & the welfare of the common people, what is their reason/agenda? Could it be simply to gain votes from the anti-gun lobby? Could it be that they simply don’t know what to do to placate the anti-gun lobby & so do the only thing they THINK they can do? Or is there a more sinister reason for wanting to disarm the Australian populace? Then again why the hard stance on self defence? Why would they actually penalize innocent citizens for trying to defend themselves & their families?

Well I think we have thought this through objectively, & yet we don’t have any real answers to this problem. For me it comes down to my rights, my right to own anything & want to providing it does no harm to anyone else. My right to defend myself & my family in any reasonable situation, eg you do not shoot a trespasser just because they are on your property, but if you consider they are endangering your life or the lives of your family, then you should have the right to use any means available to you to keep yourself & your family safe from harm.

Firearms Security.

Obviously if you are going to keep a firearm available for defence in your home, then you cannot afford to keep it locked in a gun safe. But this does not mean that it cannot be secured. A trigger lock & even a tether should be acceptable. These precautions would allow one to use the gun for defence in a reasonable short time without allowing the gun to be used against the owner or even stolen. When you are not at home, then the gun should be secured in a gun safe.

Carrying.

If members of the public had been carrying side arms, openly or concealed, then there is a good chance that the Port Arthur shooter & the Terrorist Man Haron Monis would have been shot before they were able to kill anyone. The deaths at the café were in fact the direct result of shots fired by the police, not Monis, & this only happened because the police sniper was told to stand down even though he had a clear killing shot of Monis!

Again, education & training are a priority when it comes to being approved for the carrying of a sidearm. I have not to date heard of any problems with open or concealed carry in America. So I don’t see why it would not work here.

Foolproof.

I don’t think any system can be made foolproof, there will always be idiots that will do the wrong thing, but there has to be a better system than what we have now. We simply cannot allow innocent citizens to be left defenseless because we fear there will be accidents or idiots doing the wrong thing. People are dying out there because they are legally unable to defend themselves, & this is NOT good enough!
Arms2.jpg

http://australiansurvivalandpreppers.blogspot.com.au/2017/10/gun-control-anti-self-defence-laws-in.html
 

swamp rat

Extremely Talkative
Messages
232
Points
410
Age
50
I feel very strongly that everybody should have the right to own and carry a fire arm, the only people that
suffer is the innocent people. that can not protect them self`s. there are plenty of illegal guns in the UK own by criminals,
I think it would reduce crime , because it levels the playing field
 

lonewolf

Neo Luddite Prepared Survivalist.
Messages
7,964
Points
1,180
the trouble is that most of the population now live in big cities or large urban centres and have lost any connection to the land or the countryside, most are anti gun and anti what they refer to as "blood" sports which just goes to show they don't know what their talking about.
 
Messages
7,569
Points
1,760
It's a difficult balance to achieve between the right to self defence and the urge to reduce violence in society. Where governments seem to have gone badly wrong is in criminalising legal firearms ownership while being unable to prevent the illegal trade in firearms. This means that only criminals and police are armed. We have discussed the reduced numbers of police in other threads recently, I wonder if the number of armed criminals has increased in inverse proportion. Does anyone have access to any figures?
 

lonewolf

Neo Luddite Prepared Survivalist.
Messages
7,964
Points
1,180
gun crime is still very rare in Devon and Cornwall.
"violent gang related behaviour and use of firearms remains extremely rare in Devon"....police spokesperson.
 
Last edited:

38thfoot

Very Addicted
Messages
1,557
Points
1,150
I find it strange Kieth that the Australian case study is the one that is touted most in relation to mass killings in the USA. I would also be interested to know how many potential mass killings have been stopped by private citizens being able to carry firearms as I believe it is a pretty round number.

38
 

Keith

Very Addicted
Messages
1,630
Points
780
Age
73
I find it strange Kieth that the Australian case study is the one that is touted most in relation to mass killings in the USA. I would also be interested to know how many potential mass killings have been stopped by private citizens being able to carry firearms as I believe it is a pretty round number.

38
Yes the shooting in the US are often used over here by the ant-gun lobby. I totally agree, I was only saying to my wife yesterday that it was a pitty there were no citizens carrying long arms at the latest shooting. Not that I see the point is carrying a longarm in public, side arms yes, rifles no. But I have seen videos of rifles being carried. I think this was just a show, "we can so we are".
Keith.
 

38thfoot

Very Addicted
Messages
1,557
Points
1,150
I don't have access to the figures and it's such an emotive subject that both sides pick and choose what to quote and how to use the info but I have read that a private US civilian has NEVER been in a position to intervene in such a situation.

38
 
Top