Re: A Quesion for Sylvia Else (stun guns)

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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



Re: A Quesion for Sylvia Else (stun guns)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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



Re: A Quesion for Sylvia Else (stun guns)
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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



Re: A Quesion for Sylvia Else (stun guns)
Quoted text here. Click to load it
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)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/wpa1998231/sch1.html

     "(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.



Re: A Quesion for Sylvia Else (stun guns)
Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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



Re: A Quesion for Sylvia Else (stun guns)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

http://www.smh.com.au/national/killer-claims-the-last-of-the-morans-20090615-casv.html

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



Re: A Quesion for Sylvia Else (stun guns)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Re: A Quesion for Sylvia Else (stun guns)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**The element of surprise trumps *any* defence, with the possible exception
of hand to hand combat skills.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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



Re: A Quesion for Sylvia Else (stun guns)
Added aus.legal

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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
Quoted text here. Click to load it

That doesn't address the issue of causality.

Sylvia.

Re: A Quesion for Sylvia Else (stun guns)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Sure it doesn't. The correlation is compelling however.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: A Quesion for Sylvia Else (stun guns)
Added aus.legal


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Both police and civilians get subject to a rigorous and penetrating
investigative process. But in the absence of wrongdoing, that's as far
as it goes.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I wouldn't kill someone just because they demanded my wallet. But if
they make a credible threat to kill me or inflict serious bodily injury,
then I would act to obviate the threat (assuming I were able), even if
that involved killing them. And I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

  Criminals are profit-oriented. They want to make a profit,
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I don't think that's true. The police know that where self defence is
raised, the prosecution has to negate it beyond reasonable doubt. In
situations where it's credible that the deceased threatened the accused
with death or serious bodily harm (for example, with a gun or knife),
and in the absence of contradictory evidence, no prosecution is likely.

The cases that go to court are those that lie in the murky area of
excessive self defence (for example, killing an assailant who didn't
represent a serious threat).


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Why? It seems entirely plausible that people carry guns in the USA
because it's a violent society, not the other way around.

Sylvia.

Re: A Quesion for Sylvia Else (stun guns)
Quoted text here. Click to load it

So, according to Trevor, civilians that have undergone such training,
are fine carrying deadly weapons as they go about their daily
business?

Trevor, you really are a sad pathetic soul, and rather confused.

I have undergone such training, therefore, according to Trevor
Tosspot, it should be fine for me to carry a dealy weapon as I go
about my daily business. However the same Trevor Tosspot has
previously asserted that I am a nut-job who should not be permitted
any access to firearms whatsoever?

Go figure.

For the record, I have no desire to carry a weapon. I'm a licenced
collector and recreational shooter, but feel if there is no reason to
have a gun, there's no excuse for having a gun(meaning actuall in
possession). I do not believe that crime in the society I live and in
the social circles I inhabit has reached the stage where the average
person needs to carry a defensive weapon, therefore I have no desire
to carry one.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Really, wow?
Quoted text here. Click to load it


Re: A Quesion for Sylvia Else (stun guns)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

So, according to Trevor, civilians that have undergone such training,
are fine carrying deadly weapons as they go about their daily
business?

**Read what I wrote. If you have trouble understanding my words, get someone
to explain it to you.


Trevor, you really are a sad pathetic soul, and rather confused.

**Clearly, you are the confused one. Get a 9 year old to explain what I
wrote to you.


I have undergone such training, therefore, according to Trevor
Tosspot, it should be fine for me to carry a dealy weapon as I go
about my daily business. However the same Trevor Tosspot has
previously asserted that I am a nut-job who should not be permitted
any access to firearms whatsoever?

**You ARE a nut job. Nut jobs should not have any access to firearms. Ever.
That is just good public policy. Unless you feel that it makes sense for nut
jobs to have access to firearms, of course.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au




Re: A Quesion for Sylvia Else (stun guns)


Quoted text here. Click to load it


Hmmm.

Re: A Quesion for Sylvia Else (stun guns)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

**Nothing sinister in my words. I am not attempting to suggest that John
McNamara (aka: John Melb) is a paedophile. There is no evidence to suggest
that he is anything of the kind. Amongst his many problems he has
demonstrated the reading and comprehension abilities which are approximately
equivalent to a 7 year old child. Hence, I suggested he consult with someone
who can actually understand plain English at a higher level than he is able
to. A 9 year old should suffice.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: A Quesion for Sylvia Else (stun guns)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Trevor has of course the necessary psych and educational
qualifications to make such a statement (ROFLMAO)

Re: A Quesion for Sylvia Else (stun guns)

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I did read what you wrote, here it is again:

"**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."

You're saying Police should carry deadly weapons (as opposed to
civilians) because they are "highly trained" both in the use of arms
and in the legal aspects of using those arms, as well as being trained
in how to respond to potentially violent situations, am I right?

But you're now saying that civilians who have undergone similar
training (or perhaps even more extensive training) shouldn't carry
arms?

You really are a quite confused little child aren't you.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You've given me that advice before, what is it with you and 9 year
olds?

Oops, forget I asked that question, I don't want the answer.

As there doesn't appear to be any 9 year olds available, why don't you
try?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You normally brand anyone who disagrees with you as a nut-job. That's
OK, I view being branded a nut-job by a self-centred arrogant zealot
like you to be a badge of honour.

I guess being branded a nut-job is an improvement on being compared to
Timothy McViegh or the Unabomber, as you've done to other gun owners
who've disagreed with you.

Tell us agin about your friend who can STOP his heart.




Re: A Quesion for Sylvia Else (stun guns)

Quoted text here. Click to load it


I did read what you wrote, here it is again:

"**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."

You're saying Police should carry deadly weapons (as opposed to
civilians) because they are "highly trained" both in the use of arms
and in the legal aspects of using those arms, as well as being trained
in how to respond to potentially violent situations, am I right?

**Good to see you've consulted a 9 year old to explain it to you.

But you're now saying that civilians who have undergone similar
training (or perhaps even more extensive training) shouldn't carry
arms?

**Where (precisely) did I say that? Please cite my words.


You really are a quite confused little child aren't you.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You've given me that advice before, what is it with you and 9 year
olds?

**A typical 9 year old has superior reading and comprehension abilities to
you.

Oops, forget I asked that question, I don't want the answer.

**Too late. I've already answered.


As there doesn't appear to be any 9 year olds available, why don't you
try?

**No point. I have neither the time, nor the patience to deal with idiots
like you. You are (allegedly) an adult. I suggest you acquire an adult level
education, so you can converse with the rest of the adults. There are many
places where you can do so. Start here:

http://carrickeducation.edu.au /

Or here:

http://www.vicnet.net.au/education/acfe /

Or here:

http://www.geos-mce.vic.edu.au/page/geos_melbourne.html

Quoted text here. Click to load it

You normally brand anyone who disagrees with you as a nut-job.

**Incorrect. I brand YOU as a nut job. I, for instance, frequently dissagree
with Sylvia. I do not regard her as a nut job. She appears to be well
educated, thoughtful and intelligent. You are none of those things.

 That's
OK, I view being branded a nut-job by a self-centred arrogant zealot
like you to be a badge of honour.

**Of course you do. You may believe anything you wish.

I guess being branded a nut-job is an improvement on being compared to
Timothy McViegh or the Unabomber, as you've done to other gun owners
who've disagreed with you.

**Please compile a complete list of all the people I have compared to the
Unabomber. Please the list here:

----




----

After you compile that list, please cite the response from those people I
compared to the Unabomber and the context. Context, which you clearly do not
understand, is everything.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



Re: A Quesion for Sylvia Else (stun guns)
On Jun 17, 10:05A0%am, "Trevor Wilson"
Quoted text here. Click to load it

So you're saying when you assert something, the opposite is not also
true?

" **You ARE a nut job. Nut jobs should not have any access to
firearms.Ever.
That is just good public policy."

I've had training similar to, if not more extensive, than many Police
get in the subject matter, and I've been required to carry arms in
public where my rules for employing arms, if necessary, is actually
more "open" than the Police. I've have been in situations where a
Police oficer would not be entitled to employ deadly force, but I
would have been.

But then accroding to Trevor Tosspot, I'm a nut-job.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

That'd be the first question you've answered in a very long time.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Failure to answer a question about an asertion you posted noted, and I
thought you "only deal in facts"?
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Thank you for giving me your permission to have an opinion, my but
you're an arrogant soul aren't you.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ardeet........

On Jun 17, 10:05 am, "Trevor Wilson"
"I have neither the time, nor the patience"

Re: A Quesion for Sylvia Else (stun guns)

Quoted text here. Click to load it


On second thoughts, I'm not going to lower myself to your standard

______________________________________________________

Quoted text here. Click to load it
_____________________________________________________-

Site Timeline