Sunday, Mar 15, 2009 at 23:20
There are several things wrong with your argument.
1) If we assume that someone does feel threatened enough to get the rifle out, then it would be fair to say that they are in fear of their life. Yes, you will end up in court but In most States of Australia, if you are in fear of your life, then you may defend yourself in whatever manner is necessary. (Got that straight from the mouth of a serving Copper) The whole argument of excessive force etc goes out the window. It would be up to the
Police to prove that you were not in fear of your life. Note that this is not the same thing as self-defense.
2) If you are being threatened, the very act of getting a rifle out would, more often than not, result in the the person concerned decamping from the scene at great pace. I know I would.
3) Even if you were forced to actually fire the rifle, why do you need to kill the person threatening you? Aiming below the waist should result in a non-lethal hit that would halt most people. Yes, I know all the theories about it being to easy to miss altogether etc but let's face it, the perpetrator would very likely p o o himself because you were dinkum enough to pull the trigger... and you should have more bullets in the magazine. It takes less than a second to reload.
4) Let's say you did kill them and as you suggested, you are way out in the boonies. What are the odds that the person you shot told anyone where he was going or that he was going to behave threateningly towards someone? Why wouldn't you just dispose of him thoughtfully? Eventually he may get reported missing but no-one would know
where to start looking and you'd be long gone.
5) Martial arts require you to get "up close and personal" and unless you're very good at the "art" you could be very sorry indeed. I'd rather drill a hole in someone from 15 metres away.
6) Why would you put yourself in the situation where the perpetrator could take the gun from you? That's what guns are good at...defence at a distance. A verbal warning not to move closer, followed by popping them have it would stop that. Seriously, if you were in that situation and someone was making straight at you, you'd have to take a shot. Otherwise, what is the point. I can't recall a single, real life report where someone has been stripped of a gun and had it used against them. I can only assume because it happens on shows on the telly, then it must be true.
Now, how about a hypothetical? What if someone came into your
campsite and threatened one of your family....say he tried to rape your daughter. Would you just stand there and watch? What are you going to do in that situation, throw the lid of your esky at him?
You insure your house, your car, your possessions but you don't insure yourself or your family by having some protection? It's becoming a big, bad world out there and Joanna Lees will tell you that there are people out there bent on doing you harm. Better to have the rifle and never need it than to end up as dead as Peter Falconio.
I do agree that travelling Australia is pretty safe and that if you choose your
campsite carefully you can minimise risk. However, I have personally felt threatened on one occasion and took off quick-smart in my vehicle...wasn't armed in those days. If it happened again I'd still prefer to take the decamping option, but if it wasn't an option???
And I know you neither stated nor implied it but we have all heard the inference that those who have the guns may
well end up using them aggressively rather than defensively at some time. I just don't get that. Owning a firearm does not automatically flick a switch in people's heads that turns them into some kind of monster.
I say that it should be a personal choice. Those that don't like guns or feel that they couldn't use one should take their chances, but they shouldn't object to those who believe that it is the right choice for them, unless of course you one day intend to be a perpetrator and might end up staring down the barrel.....
Cheers
FollowupID:
622392