You can't make this Sh!t up, I swear.
Remember to emphasise however, that the force used must be authorised, justified or excused by law.
They want you to defend yourself, and you can prepare to do so, and you can be allowed to hunt for an item to use as a weapon (presuming you have first analyzed the situation and determined that using a weapon is proper)... but you can not carry an item that is actually designed to defend oneself.As a rule, the law generally does not allow the carrying of anything that can be described as a weapon. This includes mace, spray dyes, most personal alarms, or any other items which have been specifically adapted, such as sharpened combs, knives carried for the purpose of self defence etc.
Ask to go to the bathroom to remove tampon/insert diaphragm;
A better line...They want you to defend yourself, and you can prepare to do so, and you can be allowed to hunt for an item to use as a weapon (presuming you have first analyzed the situation and determined that using a weapon is proper)... but you can not carry an item that is actually designed to defend oneself.
Even if said 'weapon' is non-lethal (mace, et al) or may potentially hurt the attacker's ears (personal alarm).
I thought Aussies were tough, but they sound more like us.
A better line...They want you to defend yourself, and you can prepare to do so, and you can be allowed to hunt for an item to use as a weapon (presuming you have first analyzed the situation and determined that using a weapon is proper)... but you can not carry an item that is actually designed to defend oneself.
Even if said 'weapon' is non-lethal (mace, et al) or may potentially hurt the attacker's ears (personal alarm).
I thought Aussies were tough, but they sound more like us.
If the gov't here ever tells me to give up my guns they are going to have a problem. "Ooopps, I must have lost them on that last fishing trip. They all fell overboard." :shrug:One year after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, including semi-automatic .22 rifles and shotguns, a program costing the government over 500 million dollars, the results are in...
A dramatic increase in criminal activity has been experienced. Gun control advocates respond "Just wait... we'll be safer... you'll see...".
OBSERVABLE FACT, AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%
Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of- the-elderly
At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm"
From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia had averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.
The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions
The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has risen to 112,000, a 200% increase, in response to the ban and as an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".
If the gov't here ever tells me to give up my guns they are going to have a problem. "Ooopps, I must have lost them on that last fishing trip. They all fell overboard." :shrug: