Re: A Quesion for Sylvia Else (stun guns)

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

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

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)

"(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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :-)