Buzz Lightbulb wrote:

---

 I can't see any 'bitter and twisted' content in Demaxer's response. In fact I read a controlled and well worded response. Maybe there's some projection going on there?

---

 When we want you to adjudicate between us we'll reprogramme you.

Mike Harding wrote:

---

Here's an item you may not see on Australian news outlets:

BBC: Woman shoots gunman

---

 I wonder what the gunman was thinking when he saw a woman standing up against his attack?

There are people who 'lack self esteem'. It used to be called 'inferiority complex', 'Napolean Syndrome' or 'little man syndrome'. They have possibly suffered from embarrassment by their peers or they couldn't live up to their parents expectations. 

These people sometimes develop 'superiority complexes'. They have to attack other people to hide their own inferiority. A sort of 'preemptive strike' to make themselves feel better. They sometimes are misogynists because they want to see women as being weaker than themselves. That gunman must have really been surprised when a woman shot him. Just like the bullies when someone stands up to their attacks. Poor little man.

I wonder if these people addressed their own demons then they may be able to function in society rather than hide away from society somewhere or have to attack people? I imagine online trolls have similar insecurities.

I'm sure the couple of my family members who've studied psychology would have similar assessments. Discussions at family gatherings would indicate so. Surely all these attackers could be helped if they'd recognised their own lack of self esteem, their own 'poor little man' problems and addressed their own issues before attacking others? Familiar Little Mikey?

 I tried to google search when mass school shootings, there were plenty of single school shootings from the 1800s to 1999. But this mass shooting is predominatly from 2000 to the present, It did not catologue mass shooting outside schools like the Las Vegas concert shooting.

One common thread on school shooting is, there are carried out by predominatly teenagers (Millennials and Generation Z), could this be related to the left wing invasion of the teaching profession, Wokeism and the Cancel Culture, where its all about childrens right and not about discipline, manners and respect.

Whilst we dont have mass murder in our schools, we do have the me attitude, even recently we have had 2 kids in Casino stabbed, one dead and the other in hospital in a serious condition. Why because here in Australia you cannot carry knives without a reasonable cause ( self defence is not a just cause).

Recenty in Sydney there has been plenty of gun crimes including murder, amid waring crime families. We are supposed to have gun control in Australia, but that only applies to law abiding members of the community. Even the death of a young woman in Qld recently, an unregistered firearm was used.

Victoria has a home invasion plague occuring by youth gangs, stealing money, phones and cars. Victorian government are twiddling their thumbs, Why is it that police manning at night lower than during the day, there are too many officers sitting in buildings shuffling paper like all public service departments.

If I was the benevolent dictator all public departments would be manned 24/7 with a 30/40/30 manning.

DMaxer wrote:

---

I don't get bitter and twisted Mike, you know that. I just like disagreeing with you even when  you may be correct. I also think everyone should have and does have a right to comment on the law as it is made by us through our representatives. What irks me at times is when people decide to pronounce what the law actually is and maintain that position even if they are wrong.

Self defence is very straight forward. You can't buy guns for the sole purpose of having it available to defend yourself should the need arise. You have then pre empted a situation and your response to that situation. Self defence is a reaction when a situation arises that either your life or another person in the immediate vicinity and time period is in danger and that danger would materialise in death or serious injury should you not act. It would not matter what weapon you were to use, even if it was a controlled weapon, if that was the only means available to you to prevent death or serious injury occurring to you or someone else but also under threat in the same vicinity and time frame.

The burden of proof then rests with the prosecution to negate that the action was not self defence and went further than self defence and in fact the means used were excessive in what was required to repel the attack. Blowing someone's head off because they threatened to kick you is an example. One of the tests is what did the person being attacked perceive not what did someone sitting in their lounge chair at home watching the news think they would have done in a similar situation.

There is no need to hire Queen's Counsels and have bottomless pockets. First year students learn this doctrine on day one of criminal law. It appears about half way down page one, straight after actus reus and mens res.

 

---

 A long time ago, back in the 60's, a friend of the family was a builder. He was able to justify a hand gun to protect the large sums of money that he sometimes carried. I wonder if this is still a justified reason to own a hand gun?

Edit: changed 'carry' to 'own'.

>I just like disagreeing with you

Likewise, my friend, likewise :)

I accept what you say, above, in regard to the law is correct however it is a theoretical perspective which may be of fascinating interest to argue in a courtroom but not much use to the poor bastard faced with a junkie with a knife. Courts will not, without question, accept *my* perspective of the threat facing me, instead they will make an assessment of whether my perspective was "right" or, at best, reasonable. Therefore I have to make a, more or less, perfect judgement in a situation in which it is generally impossible to so do.

I put it to you Dmaxer :) - that about the only time I could get away with using a firearm for self defence in Australia is were I to be on a shooting range with a loaded gun innocently going about target practice and someone attacked me and said (before witnesses) "I'm going to kill you Harding!" whilst brandishing a large knife and/or a firearm.

In almost any other situation the presence in my possession of a loaded firearm (or any other weapon) would indicate premeditation and guarantee my conviction.

And, of course, the concept of understanding an attacker is hell bent upon murder and then finding the keys to the gun safe, removing a firearm, finding the keys to the, seperate, ammunition safe, removing the correct ammunition and loading said firearm before confronting said attacker seems unlikely to secure my safety. This, I suppose, is why police officers carry a loaded firearm on their hip.

So I stand fast on my argument that the "practical" concept of using a firearm for self defence in Australia is absurd.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the terms to use but I've always thought that one can use reasonable force to protect oneself. For example, if you are black belt karate expert you are NOT allowed to use your karate knowledge to protect yourself against an unarmed attacker. Similarly you can't use a knife to defend yourself against an attacker who doesn't have a knife and you can't defend yourself with a gun against an attacker who doesn't have a gun.

Also, if the attacker is running away from you you can't chase them down the street and keep hitting them.

An interesting article on this matter by Ayaan Hirsi Ali - the comments are also well worth reading:

Article on Unherd

Drones with tasers for American schools.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-06/ethics-panel-members-resign-axon-taser-drones-mass-shootings/101129270