Firearms

[Spurio]

Questions regarding personal protection when travelling the outback are amusing, other than an overhyped media and urban perception, statistically the "Wolf Creek" senario is more likely to happen in suburbia.

The reciprocal of this question from a rural perspective would be, "should I bring my shottie to the city for protection as numerous people get shot, bashed, murdered and raped every day"

No you will not need a firearm for protection.

It is also illegal in most states to have a loaded firearm on a public road.

[Chesapeake]

"Self defence" may not justify buying a firearm in the eyes of the authorities but I think you are able to defend yourself with a degree of force one level above the level of the threat.   If someone is throwing rocks or using their fists then shooting them is a bit over the top but would be justified if they were using a bladed weapon.
Wise old Indian saying; 'Never go to a knife fight without a gun'

[KeithB]

To Homer_J and Patr8ol

The reason I am terrified of guns is a combination of lack of experience, lack of education and a knowledge of their power and the damage they can do. I have no objection to people legally carrying firearms and I can see many reasons why they would want to do so.

There have been a couple of rather angry and defensive posts on the subject, which I found puzzling. But all of the other replies have been very interesting.

By the way, firearms are not the only thing I am terrified of. I am also terrified of the tax man, small confined spaces, cancer and my wife's mother.

Cheers
Keith

[Marschy]

But if someone knows you have a firearm, that simple knowledge could be enough to make someone think twice about throwing rocks or using fists.

Damn right it'll make you think twice, you'll be thinking "wish I bought that AR15 when I had the opportunity". Honestly, if you think that having a firearm is necessary to deter physical one-on-one violence, then I'm not going anywhere near where you go camping.

This is cold war mentality.

[laf]

if 64% do not carry guns , 36 % must carry them. That is better than one in three carry guns, no doubt some people  will find this unacceptable so when all the bikes are in jail maybe we will be emptying our campers on the side of the road at the will of  . Talk about shooting ones self in the foot.   

[Patr80l]

To Homer_J and Patr8ol

The reason I am terrified of guns is a combination of lack of experience, lack of education and a knowledge of their power and the damage they can do. I have no objection to people legally carrying firearms and I can see many reasons why they would want to do so.

There have been a couple of rather angry and defensive posts on the subject, which I found puzzling. But all of the other replies have been very interesting.

By the way, firearms are not the only thing I am terrified of. I am also terrified of the tax man, small confined spaces, cancer and my wife's mother.

Cheers
Keith

Hey Keith, I'm not a shooter and don't like guns either.   Redneck logic would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous.   

[HKB Electronics]

How about adding the option would like to carry gun but can't justify the licence require being a
law abiding citizen. Now if I was a criminal I would just obtain one.

[alnjan]

"Self defence" may not justify buying a firearm in the eyes of the authorities but I think you are able to defend yourself with a degree of force one level above the level of the threat.   If someone is throwing rocks or using their fists then shooting them is a bit over the top but would be justified if they were using a bladed weapon.

The big legal problem you would have to get over to try and use the justification of self defence is when you were threatened, assaulted etc, where was the firearm?  It should have been locked away secure in your vehicle.  After being assaulted if you go and get your firearm for self defence, it shows your intention is not self defence but revenge or retribution.   

 

But if someone knows you have a firearm, that simple knowledge could be enough to make someone think twice about throwing rocks or using fists.
And on the other hand  rocks can kill as well as fists can be used to beat people to death so I guess the severity would have to be taken into consideration.
I owned guns my whole life before moving here. And other than when I was in the armed forces I never felt I needed to carry a gun  for self protection.
Bill

Again with your firearm secured in your vehicle,who is going to know you have a firearm? 

there are pros and cons for having a firearm while camping, but you are still covered by your states authorities on the 'use' and safe storage of the firearm.  You store it in a secure place and only remove it from the secure place when you are lawfully going to use it.  Self defence is not a lawfully reason to have or use a firearm.

[markg66]

My family and I all shoot pistols and have for 16 years, the kids less as they are only allowed to get their handgun licences at age 11 in Queensland, they are 14 and 15 now.
As already correctly mentioned above, in Australia self defense is not a lawful reason for using a firearm, I often get asked by friends "what would I do if I was at the servo on the way to the pistol club or on the way home from the club (1 of very few lawful reasons I'm allowed to have the hand guns with me) when I've got a box full of guns and the servo was getting held up?"
The answer is the same as everyone, call the cops and get yourself and every one else away from the situation if possible +  very importantly make sure you do the best you can to stop anyone realising you have firearms in the vehicle.
If no one knows you have them then you don't have to make any difficult decisions if they tried to take them off you.

[D4D]

If no one knows you have them then you don't have to make any difficult decisions if they tried to take them off you.

What? You don't have a large 'Winchester' sticker on the back window of the ute

[t303]

Self defence is not a lawfully reason to have or use a firearm.

Unless you are some shade of police officer and therefore more needy of self defense capability than we, the great unwashed.  Perchance I am mistaken, can anyone on here offer an alternative opinion as to why they permitted to carry weapons?

What I find concerning, however, is the lack of basic skill and judgement demonstrated by some LE officers' handling of weapons,  eg recognizing the difference between a Taser and a Glock in your hands before opening up on a target.  They paint 'em bright yellow for a reason, officer!
There are many Glocks in the hands of people who are barely capable of using them on the range, let alone under stress!  I am just as scared of them as the lunatic fringe.

[achjimmy]

Owning and using a firearm for self Defence or protection of your property is not an adequate reason.
.........but armed guards protect our politicians and the banks money 

[alnjan]

I am just saying, Self defence is not a lawfully reason to have or use a firearm.

Police, while on duty are exempt from the laws surrounding firearms and come under their own Acts about the use of their firearms.  Remember Police are human too and like some are just as scared of firearms as others, while others are quite used to firearms.  If they have to use a firearm I wouldn't want to be there either.

[markg66]

What? You don't have a large 'Winchester' sticker on the back window of the ute

hehe, I would love to..........but that actually contravenes the Weapons Act, they do mention that a vehicle or container used to hold firearms is not allowed to show anything that may attribute it to the transporting or securing of that equipment.

[discoteddy]

Unless you are some shade of police officer and therefore more needy of self defense capability than we, the great unwashed.  Perchance I am mistaken, can anyone on here offer an alternative opinion as to why they permitted to carry weapons?

What I find concerning, however, is the lack of basic skill and judgement demonstrated by some LE officers' handling of weapons,  eg recognizing the difference between a Taser and a Glock in your hands before opening up on a target.  They paint 'em bright yellow for a reason, officer!
There are many Glocks in the hands of people who are barely capable of using them on the range, let alone under stress!  I am just as scared of them as the lunatic fringe.

We have a winner for the most useless post of the year, a fairly sound effort considering there are only 13 odd days to go.Police are allowed the carriage of firearms through common law and their use is governed through Police Service Handbook, Part A, arms and appointments ( in NSW ) . Can you please let the rest of us know in what capacity you have witnessed this "lack of basic skill and judgement" also whist I'm here, police don't open up on targets they address threats......and thanks for the heads up on the Conductive Electrical Weapon being yellow ( Taser is a brand after all ), I know myself among others here may have missed that

As for the original post, I believe firearms have there place, just not in the back of a CT and Tug loaded with kids on a camping trip.


 

Disco teddy

[Bill]

Damn right it'll make you think twice, you'll be thinking "wish I bought that AR15 when I had the opportunity". Honestly, if you think that having a firearm is necessary to deter physical one-on-one violence, then I'm not going anywhere near where you go camping.

This is cold war mentality.

I never said I thought it was neccessary, I said it may deter, big diffeance
You can camp right next to me as I have not even touched (let alone own) a firearm since moving to Australia 13 years ago.
I do own a compound bow but it only goes with me on hunting trips.
Bill

[markg66]

It seems this is going the way of the Electrical Section..............

[McGirr]

A few years ago a croc entered a tent of people sleeping at Cape Melville a pistol was used to shoot the croc after an older lady jumped on its back to stop the croc.

Where they camped , fishermen used to throw their fish scraps in the water so when these people set up camp the croc came back around.

Yes why did they set up so close to the waters edge and why was someone carrying a pistol in a national park. A lot of people wrote into the local paper asking that question and it was answered by the police saying the person with the pistol was licensed and it was ok.

It saved a persons life so that was a good thing but I suppose everyone will have an opinion.

Mark

[CRW]

I think some need to read the Act in relation to " Justifiable Homicide" which is what the police, security guards come under as well as the average citizen also has to comply with.  We don't want to end up like America, surely


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Barrabart]

I don't need guns, i'm an expert  in the ancient and mostly unkown Scottish Martial Art called "Farrrquu"...... 

This little known Martial Art mainly involves becoming intoxicated and head butting. The name Farrrquu came about as this  phrase is generally exhaled by the artist just before the mayhem is unleashed.......... then once the opponent is grounded the traditional aspect of Farrrquu, commonly known as "Glasgow Folk Dancing" comes into play......... this is preferably done in heavy boots, up and down the opponents rib cage, it looks better if one of your mates can break out some celebratory fiddle playing or some feisty bagpipes during this section............. ahh it's a beautiful thing!! 

[lino6]

I don't need guns, i'm an expert  in the ancient and mostly unkown Scottish Martial Art called "Farrrquu"...... 

This little known Martial Art mainly involves becoming intoxicated and head butting. The name Farrrquu came about as this  phrase is generally exhaled by the artist just before the mayhem is unleashed.......... then once the opponent is grounded the traditional aspect of Farrrquu, commonly known as "Glasgow Folk Dancing" comes into play......... this is preferably done in heavy boots, up and down the opponents rib cage, it looks better if one of your mates can break out some celebratory fiddle playing or some feisty bagpipes during this section............. ahh it's a beautiful thing!! 

I've heard of this but I remember some reference to distant coughing or a "far cough"   

[laf]

this post has gone from being terrified of guns to justifable  homicide , should of went down the sink first up, lets go camping

[Barrabart]

I've heard of this but I remember some reference to distant coughing or a "far cough"   

Ahh Lino6.... i can tell by your profile pic that you too are a practising member of the fighting art.

Yes my brother in arms, your recollection of the "Far Cough" call has some merit, "Far Cough" is sometimes, but not so favourably used when one is trying to persuade his aggressor to reconsider his actions, if this fails then one has no other option but to go with the Farrrquu method.

[GanG]

you are able to defend yourself with a degree of force one level above the level of the threat

Fallacy mate, the law surrounding self defense says that a person may defend them self using a force that is reasonable, and proportionate to the threat (or very similar words) and goes on to say that the force can be applied to subdue that threat and prevent its reasonably foreseeable recurrence.

There are a number of myths around self defense, the one up rule, the reflex response........all crapola.

The other dilemma is that reasonable and proportionate are not defined specifically in the acts, they are determined by the circumstances in each case, according to the reasonable person test............would a reasonable person conclude your actions unavoidable and justifiable.

The other keystone to self defense is having no other choice, if withdrawal is an option, rather than pounding your attacker into the pavement/drawing a gun etc, then the law would expect you to withdraw and show a willingness to not fight, the defense of "self defense" comes into play when you have no other option.

I am neither a police officer or lawyer, I have taught self defense for 20 years, and have instructed a number of professional groups, mostly in healthcare on the legal framework for self defense and how to respond to aggression and violence.

If I have any of this R-sup I am sure one of the coppers or lawyers on here will correct me, but I am fairly confident that the basic principals I have outlined are accurate.

[Patr80l]

Fallacy mate, the law surrounding self defense says that a person may defend them self using a force that is reasonable, and proportionate to the threat (or very similar words) and goes on to say that the force can be applied to subdue that threat and prevent its reasonably foreseeable recurrence.

There are a number of myths around self defense, the one up rule, the reflex response........all crapola.

The other dilemma is that reasonable and proportionate are not defined specifically in the acts, they are determined by the circumstances in each case, according to the reasonable person test............would a reasonable person conclude your actions unavoidable and justifiable.

The other keystone to self defense is having no other choice, if withdrawal is an option, rather than pounding your attacker into the pavement/drawing a gun etc, then the law would expect you to withdraw and show a willingness to not fight, the defense of "self defense" comes into play when you have no other option.

I am neither a police officer or lawyer, I have taught self defense for 20 years, and have instructed a number of professional groups, mostly in healthcare on the legal framework for self defense and how to respond to aggression and violence.

If I have any of this R-sup I am sure one of the coppers or lawyers on here will correct me, but I am fairly confident that the basic principals I have outlined are accurate.

Thanks for the info.  I think I was confused with the police approach where "walk away" is not always an option.