Australia home defense

A

Acme

New member
I was watching a national morning news show on TV in my hotel in Australia this morning and they had a little roundtable segment with the various personalities on the set. Apparently there was a home invasion here recently where the invaders broke into a guys house bearing swords. The home owner disarmed one of the intruders and ended up killing one of them with the sword.

Let me stop here and say that, yes, I know this is an old topic and we all scratch our heads in disbelief at the Aussie mindset. But when you actually see a conversation like this take place it really drives home the point. That's what happened to me this morning, and I thought I might share it with you all.

Anyway, the conversation in the studio involved one guy who was most definitely on the side of the homeowner. He seemed a bit disgusted by the suggestions that the homeowner might have been in the wrong for having defended himself. And then there was a woman on the other side of the issue. She seemed to have genuine compassion for the homeowner's situation, but she had an amazing capacity to temper her compassion with absurd statements. At one point she said that she didn't have a big problem with the homeowner disarming the invader :eek: but that the authorities needed to examine very closely the circumstances surrounding the killing of the invader. She said that they needed to determine whether he killed the invader out of a sense of defense of his own life or if it was just an "execution" of someone "who was just there to cart off his plasma TV".

Naturally, I was as stunned watching it as you are now reading it.

She went on in the discussion to ask the group how much worse it would have been if the homeowner had "grabbed a gun that he had hidden in the sofa cushions in case something like this ever happened". She said, "I certainly don't want *my* neighbors keeping guns in their houses for personal defense". Yes, that's almost word for word. She specifically said that she didn't want them to have guns in their houses to defend themselves. She was visibly scared by the notion.

The relatively "pro" guy said that he didn't think it would have mattered. That public sympathy would still be with the homeowner even if he'd wielded his own weapon instead of disarming the intruder.

And then they went on to discuss how they certainly didn't want Australia to "go the direction of the US" with respect to guns.

I'm here for a few more weeks, but I can't wait to get back to Texas where things are "normal". Although I will say that it's fun to engage a local in conversation that gets around to gun rights and gun ownership. It melts their brains when I show them my CHL. :D

- Acme
 
I just found a link to the news article: Home Invastion Victim Kills Intruder With Sword.

A householder has fought back against two armed intruders, killing one with a sword he seized from his attackers, police said.

A second intruder fled with cuts to his hands and legs after the attempted armed burglary in Melbourne's south-east early today.

Police said two intruders armed with weapons including a gun and a sword, tied up and assaulted the two occupants of a home in Noble Park about 12.30am (AEDT), and demanded money.

But one of the occupants, a man in his 30s known as Johnny, broke free and fought back, grabbing one of his attackers' weapons, police said.

"While the intruders were in the house the man was able to get hold of a sword it is believed one of the intruders brought with them," a spokesman said.

"One intruder was killed by the man at the house and the other intruder injured. Police are still seeking the second intruder.

"I believe the male victim used an opportunity that presented itself to obtain one of the weapons," police detective Stephen McIntyre told reporters at the scene.

The dead man was aged in his 20s.

Police have appealed to the second intruder, in his late teens to 20s, to give himself up, or they want to hear from doctors who may have treated him for cuts.

The second occupant of the house, a woman in her 20s known as Brooke, escaped the house and ran to a neighbour's property.

Neighbour John Piasentin said he woke up to screams and commotion from next door and found Brooke extremely distressed at his doorstep.

"Brooke's got away and come into our house to, you know, get refuge," he said.

"She was frantic.

"She wanted an ambulance called. She was very concerned about Johnny."

Brooke said the attackers had switched off the electricity supply, and grabbed her when she went outside to investigate, Mr Piasentin said.

"She got assaulted and that's where it started," he said.

Detective McIntyre said Johnny was not at home when Brooke was initially attacked.

He said it was unlikely charges would be laid against the male occupant of the house.

"At this stage, we believe he was defending himself," Detective McIntyre said. "Obviously, we want to hear from the other person in the house."
 
The homeowner

Thanks to the tireless work of John Tingle and the Australian Shooters Party. We have a law in Australia that basically states that anyone who breaks into your home and threatens you with violence can be dealt with by the owner/occupant using deadly force. There was a case where some youths, intent on beating up another youth, broke into the wrong house. It was dark and the owner was alerted by the noise of these thugs breaking down his back door and armed himself with a rifle (i think). One of the youths came at him in the darkened house with a tree branch. The occupant shot him dead and subsequently was not charged.

I belive now that in the UK, the Blair government has created laws that prohibit a homeowner or occupant defending themselves in the event of a break in or home invasion. Couple this to the banning of handguns and you have the perfect environment for runaway crime and assaults. Why in the name of all things decent would any government legislate against you defending yourself, loved ones and your property???

I don't feel any sympathy for criminals. They're criminals by CHOICE and if they choose to threaten me or my family in the process of trying to steal from me I'm happy to tag the bastards if I have to.

I have a theory however. It is that governments are stripping their citizens of the means to defend themselves so that either they'll be easily surpressed in the event of martial law being enforced or that everyone will be totally dependant on the government for protection in their day to day lives.
 
"At this stage, we believe he was defending himself," Detective McIntyre said. "Obviously, we want to hear from the other person in the house."
Click to expand...

"Because, you know, we rabidly want to investigate any possibility there may be of being able to charge a home invasion victim with a crime because he committed the dreadful act of killing a violent criminal attacker. We deplore the notion of standing up to violent criminals, and we will seek life in prison for the defender if it is found that he could have simply fled and left all of his worldly possessions and wealth to his attackers. There are always other places to live. Rather than needlessly kill this man with his own sword -- how horrible that must have been for the youth to realize he was dying from an attack with his own sword -- the homeowner could easily have just relocated to a different neighborhood." :rolleyes:


-blackmind
 
Could happen here too. In NY City they will parole a three time convicted child molester to make room for someone who has used a gun in self defense.

They put Bernie Goetz in jail, kept him there an extra week, but let out dozens of career criminals for lack of room.
 
Perhaps what we need now is an empowerment of the victim movement. That is to say, to place a victim's right to safety and security above that of a criminal aggressor. Not only should this encompass immunity from criminal prosecution but also civil liability. Save for the afterlife, there should be no reward for criminal pursuits.
 
Lessons to learn

In another thread some replied to my post about politicians and gun control by saying that "no politician could just take away our guns" He was very liberial.
 
Acme, the ladies opinion is much the same as would be taken by any court in the US. Once the intruder was disarmed the need to kill was gone. Now had he pulled his gun from the couch cushion and shot the intruder while he was brandishing the sword it would be a plane case of self defense in the US.
Laws suck some times, just glad we live in a country where we can own guns for sport or protection.
I had a car load of young punks (black) pull up beside me on the interstate a few years back and invite me to pull over to the side of the road so they could "beat my ass" for no reason that I knew of. My wife and children were in the car with me and my wife handed me my pistol from the glove box and I just laid her up in the window, all that was required, they dissappeared downt he interstate in a black cloud of smoke. Too this day I do not know what their problem was but I can immagine what the outcome would have been had I not had my gun.
 
Not happy

:I live in Australia and it is so sad, and totally embarrassing to have such feeble minded people representing us, robbing us of much more than just the plasma, as that lentil eating chardonnay sipping hag subjected. It is our liberties that are being stolen, and it is simply because most of the voting public live in cities When conditions are right fish can be heard sipping all available offerings from the surface.
that are full of bleeding hearts. Who think that terrorists are misunderstood, and that we should throw open our doors and permit Rolex wearing refugees in to our country by the thousands.
I have got into plenty of disagreements with theses types of people, and they remain deliberately ignorant when I remind them that over 30000 plus people sleep on the streets at night.
So why do we need to import refugees? Our countries full of ones that were born here!
barf:
 
This will take some time

I'll try to give you an idea of current firearms law in Australia "in a nutshell".

Handguns:
Private citizens are only permitted to use handguns at a registered/recognised shooting range.

it is illegal to fire a pistol anywhere except an official target range.Pistol permits take over a year to obtain and the applicant must be a member of a registered pistol club.

Pistol licenses are subject to strict storage regulations and the permit holder must shoot each caliber pistol he/she owns at least three times a year in an authorised/official competition event.

For target shooting, including ISPC shooting, permit holders are not permitted to shoot a caliber over .357.

Pistols over .357 are permitted for metallic silhouette shooting but these firearms must be used in three official competition events per year or the permit will be revoked (as with all other calibers)

Pistols in transit must be secured in a lockable container and magazines, ammunition transported in a separate locked container.



Of course none of these rules apply to organised criminal groups or armed robbers.

Longarms:

Longarms permits are easy to obtain compared to a handgun license. The applicant must complete a "Firearms safety awareness" course and if the applicant wishes to hunt, they will need an agreement from a landowner (40 acres or more) to obtain a hunting license.

Longarms in transit must be secured in a lockable container and magazines, ammunition transported in a separate locked container. There is some debate as to whether you need to transport rifles without the bolt in place but most people lock it in with the mags and ammo.

The license holder must participate in at least three official events if he/she has a target shooting permit and one hunt per year if he/she has a hunting permit.

Longarms must be stored in an approved safe/cabinet which is subject to initial police inspection prior to the issue of a "Permit to Acquire"

Firearms Licensing

All firearms sold in Australia have to be approved and sold through a licensed dealer to the applicant. A "Permit to Acquire" must be obtained prior to the purchase of any firearm. These come from the Firearms Registry located in New South Wales

Banned firearms:

Auto loading rifles and shotguns

Pump action shotguns

Any automatic rapid fire weapon.

Crossbows

High powered slingshots

Any military arms/ordnance

Once again, none of these bans apply to the criminal class who have managed to obtain rocket launchers, grenades, pistols and assault rifles in recent times. There is also a flourishing trade in weapons that were gathered during the gun amnestys and "buybacks" that Jack Boot John Howard ordered after the mass shootings in Port Arthur, Tasmania.
 
I think defending onself and family inside ones home by any means available when threatened with grievous injury or death is a fundamental human right, that has usually been unquestioned until recently. It is a life and death matter, natural law, basic survival, and any sort of government that would impede that is basically violating human rights. Yes there should be an investigation to prove the facts and the force was justified, but still I would dread to live in a society where the elites cannot discern the difference between the criminals and the law abiding masses, and consider either criminal violence or reasonable self defense as equivalent, as disruptions of the social order and both should be suppressed by law. Like the little people riff raff are all either criminals or potentail criminals with no distinction. Ugh.
 
You can put a scope on them and they are quiet probably... Or some other just as silly reason.

I think the most rediculous thing is politicians banning "dangerous" guns when any firearm can kill another human being if shot in the correct place (I'm pretty sure a .177 cal pellet could kill a person in a freak accident if fired from a hunting model) They ban multi shot weapons mostly because they don't want to have to deal with someone coming at them with one (politicians thinking they are more important than they are). Thing is if a BG wanted to commit a crime, it wouldn't be much farther of a leap to commit a crime with a gun.
 
Pistol laws are 38 cal and below not 357.The rest sound about right but I think NSW state laws, not all of Australia. QLD has no compulsory shoots for longarms,and crossbows are legal but need to be registered. However the 50BMG and anti tank rifles are banned in QLD.


Karl.
 
What a surprise

Thanks for the correction on the pistol calibers:) In the news today, a gun dealer in Queensland has been handed a 14 year sentence today for "repurposing" handguns he was supposed to be collecting and destroying/disabling in the John Howard gun buyback. The Police didn't have anywhere near the manpower needed to monitor all the dealers who were collecting firearms and so this lowlife managed to sell over seven hundred of the weapons on to nice law abiding criminals. Three of the confiscated (under buyback) weapons are known to have been used in criminal activities. So these are the ones they know about, all the rest are floating free in the underworld. Without the buyback scheme, the bulk of these firearms would be locked away in the safes of registered, licensed shooters. How I love my Government:barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:
 
Castle Laws

more and more usa states are voting in castle laws.you know the ones that state that you have a right to shoot an attacker where ever you have a right to be.I note australia has increasing crime rate/also canada+ england.the more guns the less crime.socialist states as aformentioned,just do not get it.
 
It's getting to a point in England where the police tell citizens to just shout "Call the police" instead of "Help" b/c the perp could sue a citizen for stopping the act. In the US we can hit back and charge the BG with assault, provided there is enough evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top