Daily reminder how backward Australia is when it comes to self-defence:
A DOONAN man trying to protect his mother found himself in Gympie Magistrates Court this week, charged with one of the most serious classifications of smuggling offence known to Australian law.
Peter Andrew Gates, 50, pleaded guilty to intentionally importing a taser without approval, in breach of the Customs Act.
The electric shock weapon is part of the wide-ranging Tier 2 group of goods which under the Act also includes firearms, capsicum sprays, nerve gas, radioactive substances, human body tissue, child pornography and counterfeit credit cards.
But the court was told Gates had good intentions relating to the safety of his mother, who had recently been the victim of a break and enter in which a man she did not know had entered her bedroom and stood over her bed.
Gates had been concerned for his mother’s safety, as he was frequently out of the country in the course of his work in the gas drilling industry.
His legal representative told the court he had advised Gates of the danger of such devices being turned on the person trying to act in self-defence.
Magistrate Ross Woodford said it would have been better if the offence could have been dealt with alongside other matters in July. He said he would have imposed a fine with no conviction recorded, so as not to interfere with Gates’ need to travel overseas for work. But the court was told federal law did not allow this. Instead, Mr Woodford placed Gates on a $500 good behaviour bond for a year.
Another “win” for the #nationofvictims.
If you’re unfamiliar with The Customs Act:
233BAB Special offence relating to tier 2 goods:
The regulations may provide that:
(a) specified firearms, munitions and military warfare items of any kind including combat vests and body armour; and
(b) specified knives, daggers and other like goods; and
(c) specified chemical compounds; and
(d) specified anti-personnel sprays and gases; and
(e) specified fissionable or radioactive substances; and
(f) specified human body tissue; and
(g) specified human body fluids; and
(h) items of child pornography or of child abuse material; and
(i) counterfeit credit, debit and charge cards; and
(j) other specified goods; constitute tier 2 goods.
So in other words, wanting to protect your family from being a victim of violent crime after a previous experience is akin to importing child pornography, wanting to possess purely defensive items like body armour or wanting to build a nuke.
The legal representative’s advice: “His legal representative told the court he had advised Gates of the danger of such devices being turned on the person trying to act in self-defence.”
Now, he likely said that to get his client a lesser sentence for sure, but the client should not have been through this in the first place for purely taking reasonable precautions to protect his mother in his absence. Absurd state of affairs.
This also highlights an argument often trotted out by the authoritarian crowd as an emotive excuse against self-defence: i.e. “You shouldn’t have anything for self-defence because it may be used against you.”
So in other words, my alternative is to do nothing and be a victim against a violent criminal. Further, in this situation you would advocate this woman getting hands on with an offender much stronger or powerful than her? And if the person is already armed? What do I do then?
Those were this woman’s only two choices – pick one and bask in your moral superiority.
If tasers, pepper spray and firearms are “no good” for self-defence, then why do Police carry them? There are also examples of cops being disarmed and having their tools used against them – the argument goes both ways.
Sure, possessing a self-defence item is no guarantee by itself you will prevail and training and situational awareness is just as, if not more important. However, thinking no defence is a good defence is a recipe for disaster – instituting this mantra as a norm is a societal disaster.
The CDC found in 2015:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actualBottom of Form defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.”
Australia has it completely arse backwards when it comes to self-defence. You have the legal right to self-defence but that right is virtually useless when you don’t have access to the legal means and you are expected to improvise against someone who has come prepared for an attack. The current situation is stacked way in favour of the bad guys.
The import and genuine reason laws need to be amended or scrapped altogether to allow good, law abiding citizens to protect themselves from the criminal element with non-lethal means and those who qualify should be permitted to conceal carry a firearm for the same purpose.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to import a nuke.