Re: A Quesion for Sylvia Else (stun guns)

>> Only slightly less portable I think. Still, your idea has merit, and >> I commend it to Gordon. We certainly wouldn't want him to cause >> permanent harm to anyone using the stun gun - otherwise it would be >> too like a taser, and it's unlawful for a private individual to own >> such a thing in Australia. > > Shame really. I used to the night tafe thing in sydney and railing > it home afterwards. You get to meet some rather unsavoury characters. > > Even so, some do have them, smuggled in one way or another. Or if > you have reasonable knowledge in electronics, you can pretty much > make one yourself. > A self oscillating primary to a smallish transformer to charge the > storage caps to several hundred volts, and an scr to dump that to a > pulse transformer (or two) when the charge has reached sufficient > levels. The transformers are very much DIY jobbies, and it certainly > helps if you have at least been versed in high voltage pulse > transformer operation and construction beforehand... If not, be > ready to make several prototypes and also to be bitten by a crocodile > at least 18 times before you're done. > If you look carefully enough, a yank engineering rag had one as a > project some years back. I don't have the details on hand though (I > have the magazine specially archived in a random pile somewhere in > the house).

A Tesla coil gives a pretty decent whack and is legal.

Reply to
DavidW
Loading thread data ...

**In what sense is it legal?

Legal to build and own? Certainly. Legal to use on another human? Certainly not.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

Yes. As opposed to a taser, which is illegal to own (according to Sylvia above).

Reply to
DavidW

above).

Probably not. A Taser is a prohibited weapon in NSW (and I imagine in all other Australian jurisdictions), but because of its nature, not because it is a Taser.

Schedule 1 of the Weapons Prohibition Act (NSW)

formatting link

"(18) Any hand-held defence or anti-personnel device that is designed to administer an electric shock on contact, such as the Taser Self-Defence Weapon or an electrified brief-case, but not including any such hand-held device that may lawfully be used on an animal in accordance with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 ."

So the Taser is merely an example of such a prohibited weapon, but anything similar, whether home built or otherwise, would also be a prohibited weapon.

This follows the general Australian philosophy, which appears to be that people should not be permitted to own anything designed to allow them to protect themselves. The rationale, no doubt, is that any such device can also be used offensively, but it does rather disempower law abiding citizens.

But not, of course, criminals.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

Okay, well, we use Tesla coils at my workplace (to ionize argon gas). However, they probably don't qualify as "hand-held" since as supplied they have no power supply and require 240V AC.

Oh dear. Do you support open slather on guns and other weapons?

Reply to
DavidW

**Sylvia hasn't figured out that this guy carried guns:

formatting link

Helped him a lot. NOT! Sylvia has not worked out that the element of surprise trumps pretty much any weapon anyone can reasonably carry. There's a damned good reason why amry personel and police, when entering dangerous situations, carry their weapons, safety off and fingers on the trigger. A guy sitting in his favourite deli, despite allegedly carrying a handgun, would be no match for a boy scout and a cricket bat, if that scout had the element of surprise.

There's some very good reasons why people should not be allowed to carry weapons in public. The US is a prime example of how dangerous a modern, civilised society can get, when people are allowed to carry weapons.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

power

Doesn't matter anyway. As they stand, the Tesla coils would qualify as "defence or anti-personnel device". They still wouldn't even if they had a built in power supply.

I have mixed feelings about guns.

But one isn't even allowed to carry capsicum spray.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

Which just shows that possession of a gun is not a perfect defence.

But the punk on the street attempting to steal your wallet probably doesn't really intend to shoot or stab, as appropriate - he doesn't think he'll have to. Pulling out a gun instead of a wallet and killing said punk would, IMHO, likely be quite effective, and, in the absence of a prohibition on carrying guns, lawful.

Is it a dangerous society *because* people carry weapons, or is it a dangerous society *in which* people carry weapons? Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

**Nor should one. By disallowing the carry of capsicum spray, police can arrest and charge criminals for carrying capsicum spray. Just a reminder: Capsicum spray works just as well as a defensive weapon, as it does for attack. It can be used to disable a victim, so a criminal can pretty much do whatever she wants to her victim.

Disallowing the carry of *any* weapon makes the job of police much easier. ANYONE carrying an offensive weapon (like capsicum spray) makes that person a criminal. Nice and easy. Lock 'em up. Unless, of course, you'd prefer to live in a state of paranoia, like most Americans do.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

As effective a deterrent as it might be, I'm not _entirely_ convinced that the appropriate punishment for alleged attempted petty theft is immediate death.

Whichever, I think it's safe to say that without the weapons it would be a far less dangerous society.

Reply to
DavidW

**The element of surprise trumps *any* defence, with the possible exception of hand to hand combat skills.
**Your humble opinon is, of course, not noted in law. Shooting another human will, at best, cause a manslaughter charge to be levelled. The cost to the shooter will be substantial. As it should be. (Even in the US, it is not legal in many jurisdictions to kill an assailant, just because a person fears for the loss of property. Of course, in places like Texas, it is pretty much legal to shoot piza delivery guys, if the property owner feels paranoid fear.) MUCH better to hand over the wallet. No one gets hurt. Killing another human over the loss of property is reprehensible and indefensible.
**Despite the fact that VASTLY more Americans carry guns around the streets, legally, the US remains the most dangerous, deadly Western, developed Democratic nations. Carrying guns achieves, at best, nothing. At worst, it leads to more violence and death. In fact, the US homicide rate is presently 3 times the Australian one.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

The problem is that a criminal who wants to use capsicum spray offensively need only carry it when intending to commit an offence. Given that we do not have routine and frequent searches, such a criminal is not likely to get caught.

On the other hand, someone wishing to use the spray defensively has to carry it pretty much all the time. Such a person has a much higher chance of getting caught.

So the law has little deterrent value for criminals, but is a significant deterrent to law abiding citizens. It seems likely that the prohibition that's supposed to make society safer really has the opposite effect.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

**Of course. Sylvia fails to do even basic research to justify her homicidal needs. The rate of violent assault is very similar in most Western, developed nations. Clearly, Western, developed nations are all approximately as violent as each other. Yet the rate of homicide in the US vastly eclipses that of any other Western, developed nation. Significantly, more than 60% of all US homicides are gun shot related.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

Attempted armed robbery. I wouldn't call that petty theft. Criminals who don't want to die at the hands of their intended victims shouldn't threaten them with death. Unlike their chosen targets, they have a choice.

It would be it there were really no weapons. But what actually happens is that the criminals have weapons, and law abiding citizens don't.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

No, killing in self defence is a complete defence to a charge of murder or manslaughter, provided the killing was a reasonable response to the situation as perceived by the crim's intended victim.

If someone pulls a knife or gun on you (and, in the former case, is close enough to be an imminent threat), then there is no problem with killing them. That is why the police don't get prosecuted in such situations. They don't have any special power to kill people.

You're confusing two situations. If someone has my wallet and is running away with it, then I cannot lawfully kill them to retrieve my property.

But if someone is threatening to kill me unless I hand over my wallet, then, since I am under no lawful compulsion to accede to their request, they're actually making a direct and credible threat to kill me. I can respond to that threat with lethal force. I don't have to meekly hand over my property.

Of course, in places like Texas, it is

That doesn't address the issue of causality.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

**Nor is the alleged 'innocent' person carrying the stuff. That means the truly paranoid can carry capsicum spray and probably not get caught. Of course, it is unlikely to be much use either (see previous reference to element of surprise). The nice thing about making it illegal, of course, is that ANYONE carrying the stuff is a criminal. Makes it nice and easy for LEOs.
**Really? How many times have you been searched whilst out and about? I've lived in Sydney for 55 years and have never been searched. I suspect that my experience mirrors the cast majority of residents living in the most dangerous and deadly city in the nation.
**Not so. By making it a criminal offence to carry capsicum spray, we can be assured that if a criminal is caught with the stuff, they will be removed from the streets. We can all support that. Same deal with guns. Carrying a gun, whilst committing a crime, means that the police can lay extra charges.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

**Shooting another human will rarely be considered a reasonable response, unless the assailant also holds a gun. Either way, a charge of manslaughter (at the least) will be levelled. The court case will be costly, whatever the outcome.
**The police are highly trained. They are trained to assess a given situation and react accordingly. They are also given some legal training and fully understand that, if they do kill someone, that they will be (rightfully) subject to rigorous and penetrating investigative prosesses. Civlians are not (usually) so trained. For those and other reasons, civilians should not possess deadly (or other weapons) when going about their daily routine.
**Nor should you. Nor should you kill someone, just because they demand your wallet either. Criminals are profit-oriented. They want to make a profit, with as little risk as possible. Killing the victim means that they are far less likely to profit from the crime.
**No, you don't. You need to be aware that, by killing another human, you will be subject to the law and will likely be charged with (at least) manslaughter.
**Sure it doesn't. The correlation is compelling however.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Reply to
Trevor Wilson

You can't have it both ways. If a person is so unlikely to get caught even when carrying it regularly, then the law is pretty much useless anyway, and might as well be repealed.

The implication is that the criminal has been caught other than because they're carrying the spray. In that case, rather than make possession itself unlawful, it would be better to make it an element of aggravation for whatever offence the criminal was commiting, or had commited, when found with the spray. That way people wanting to use it defensively could do so, and criminals would still have to be concerned about being caught with it.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

Previous version cancelled, and reposted with correct addition of aus.legal. Apologies to Trevor who had already replied to the previous version.

Added aus.legal

Trevor Wils>>

No, killing in self defence is a complete defence to a charge of murder or manslaughter, provided the killing was a reasonable response to the situation as perceived by the crim's intended victim.

If someone pulls a knife or gun on you (and, in the former case, is close enough to be an imminent threat), then there is no problem with killing them. That is why the police don't get prosecuted in such situations. They don't have any special power to kill people.

You're confusing two situations. If someone has my wallet and is running away with it, then I cannot lawfully kill them to retrieve my property.

But if someone is threatening to kill me unless I hand over my wallet, then, since I am under no lawful compulsion to accede to their request, they're actually making a direct and credible threat to kill me. I can respond to that threat with lethal force. I don't have to meekly hand over my property.

Of course, in places like Texas, it is

That doesn't address the issue of causality.

Sylvia.

Reply to
Sylvia Else

Too bad the only ones who are voluntarily handing over their firearms are the law abiding citizens.

They're not paranoid. Everyone *IS* out to get them. :-)

--
Linux Registered User # 302622
Reply to
John Tserkezis

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.