If you could carry a concealed weapon would you? (1 Viewer)

[SylviaB]

http://www.businessinsider.com/missouris-response-to-gun-control-2013-2

 

[SylviaB]

US Police Oppose Stricter Gun Control

 

[soloooooo]

Absolutely.

 

[Azure]

Seeing as this thread seems to be revived.

No, you'd almost certainly be convicted of a criminal offense under Australian law.

Doesn't really matter if a weapon was used or not. A court is generally more concerned with the necessity of self defence in the context of the situation and the reasonableness of the actions taken to defend yourself.

 

[a c]

That's right.

Legal aside, I've been thinking about the practicality of 'appropriate force'. Does someone threatening you justify unlimited retalitory force? Like kfnmpah is talking about being hassled by lads and pulling a gun in self defense, which is really escalating the situation, and you're not pointing that weapon at someone unless you intend to use it.

I can see argument for both sides, re; the unlimited potential for violence by the lad, you're facing unknown potential for death or permanent disability, so your defence is appropriate to unknown potential; the lad threatening really has responsibility to wear the consequences.

On the other hand I can see people exploiting a right to unlimited self defence to get away with murder, anyone in a minor argument might feel threatened.

 

[loversinjapan]

No. It's more likely to be used against me in a situation of conflict. God, and imagine all the law reform that would have to occur. It'd be a nightmare lol.

 

[loversinjapan]

we're not talking about defending your self in a gun duel. It's not a race to get your gun out before they shoot you. if someone pulls a gun on you you do what they tell you to (I guess)

and harming someone with a weapon is not the same as self defence.
The law is about intent. The intent to harm someone and doing so is illegal. but if you're put in a situation where the only way to protect yourself is to harm the other person, that is self defence and you cannot be charged for that (unless the other person sues but i mean if you're genuinely defending yourself then they won't have a leg to stand on)

they are two completely different things and you cannot argue otherwise. Owning a weapon to protect yourself and owning one to harm others are, i stress, *completely* different things.

Unless you're a psychopath.

And i mean it's not about using it, say some young riff raff comes up to you and tries to rob you or fight you (your average teenage hoodlum would not be carrying a weapon, i guess. this is from my experience in the inner west where there are *lots* of lads and up in newcastle where everyone is poor and scum bogans) so if you pull out a knife or gun i'm going to say they will run for the hills.

it's not just about using it, that is a LAST resort. but merely having it sends a message to whoever may try to harm you. Don't mess with me.


i feel like this is all common sense but i guess ~~~~it's not that common~~~~

Mens rea is very hard to prove as it is, self defence is even harder, and this area of law would require a mass upheaval. Self Defence/Provocation/Lapse in control would be overly abused and even harder to deal with in court.

I'm 100% sure some guy/girl that is double my size and/or mentally incapable (most likely if they're trying to attack/sexually assault etc. me) won't give a shit about what weapon I'm holding and would most likely use it against me anyway.

 

[townie]

Vaguely related: http://m.smh.com.au/world/crazy-acc...ntally-shoots-sister-dead-20130502-2itwm.html

Surely even those who are pro guns would agree that a 5 year old doesn't have the capacity to operate one?

 

[Rafy]

Waiting for the NRA to argue that if the 2 year old had a gun as well she could have defended herself.

 

[funkshen]

Waiting for the NRA to argue that if the 2 year old had a gun as well she could have defended herself.

you mean waiting for the NRA to say there should be an armed guard in every house

the NRA isn't just in the pocket of the arms manufacturers, its in the pocket of big security too

 

[Lolsmith]

Vaguely related: http://m.smh.com.au/world/crazy-acc...ntally-shoots-sister-dead-20130502-2itwm.html

Surely even those who are pro guns would agree that a 5 year old doesn't have the capacity to operate one?

yes that is true

that doesn't automatically diminish others' rights doe

a 5 year old doesn't have the capacity to drive a car but you can be sure as shit if he got behind the wheel he'd kill some cunts

 

[funkshen]

yes that is true

that doesn't automatically diminish others' rights doe

a 5 year old doesn't have the capacity to drive a car but you can be sure as shit if he got behind the wheel he'd kill some cunts

pipe down gun-grabber

 

[soloooooo]

What constitutes a concealed weapon? A gun? A knife? HIV? A taser? A laser? Bird flu?

 

[townie]

yes that is true

that doesn't automatically diminish others' rights doe

a 5 year old doesn't have the capacity to drive a car but you can be sure as shit if he got behind the wheel he'd kill some cunts

I never said it did. but this wasn't a case of a child accessing their parents gun. The gun in question was obviously marketed for children to use.

 

[Lolsmith]

I never said it did. but this wasn't a case of a child accessing their parents gun. The gun in question was obviously marketed for children to use.

yeah I'm not particularly cool with that