PRC as a amplifier in GPS question.

[Sylvia Else]

|-|erc wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote
Gordon Lightfoot III wrote:
Dear Sylvia.

I'm on my way up to Jaycar to get components for a stun gun, would you be
able to give me a parts list.

Kind Regards,
GLIII


http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=MF1086

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=SB2490

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=WW4012

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=ZT2467 * 6

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=RE6240 * 2 * number of
firings required.

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=PP0425 * number of firings
required.

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=ZC4047

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=RR1656

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=RC5336

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=SP0702

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=SY4068 * 4

http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=WH3050 * 10 metres

Have fun.

Sylvia.


1000 Watt?

I don't want to put Gordon at risk by providing insufficient zap.

Sylvia.

 

[John Tserkezis]

Sylvia Else wrote:

I would revise the design a bit.

A slightly less portable design, but by far more effective. An electric
wheelchair with probed straps. The extra battery capacity would flash fry
them in fifteen seconds, and because they're strapped down, they're less
likely to cause injury to themselves or others when they're flailing around.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

 

[Sylvia Else]

John Tserkezis wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:

I would revise the design a bit.

A slightly less portable design, but by far more effective. An
electric wheelchair with probed straps. The extra battery capacity
would flash fry them in fifteen seconds, and because they're strapped
down, they're less likely to cause injury to themselves or others when
they're flailing around.

Only slightly less portable I think. Still, your idea has merit, and I
commend it to Gordon. We certainly wouldn't want him to cause permanent
harm to anyone using the stun gun - otherwise it would be too like a
taser, and it's unlawful for a private individual to own such a thing in
Australia.

Sylvia.

 

[DirtyDave]

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 01:19:49 GMT, "|-|erc" <h@r.c> wrote:

I heard of a private investigator who had one.

Investigating privates (unless they're in the army) - now that IS illegal.....

 

[Sylvia Else]

DavidW wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
news:qWBZl.3984$FI5.2954@newsfe12.iad...
John Tserkezis wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

Only slightly less portable I think. Still, your idea has merit,
and I commend it to Gordon. We certainly wouldn't want him to cause
permanent harm to anyone using the stun gun - otherwise it would be
too like a taser, and it's unlawful for a private individual to own
such a thing in Australia.
Shame really. I used to the night tafe thing in sydney and railing
it home afterwards. You get to meet some rather unsavoury
characters. Even so, some do have them, smuggled in one way or another. Or
if
you have reasonable knowledge in electronics, you can pretty much
make one yourself.
A self oscillating primary to a smallish transformer to charge the
storage caps to several hundred volts, and an scr to dump that to a
pulse transformer (or two) when the charge has reached sufficient
levels. The transformers are very much DIY jobbies, and it
certainly helps if you have at least been versed in high voltage
pulse transformer operation and construction beforehand... If not,
be ready to make several prototypes and also to be bitten by a
crocodile at least 18 times before you're done.
If you look carefully enough, a yank engineering rag had one as a
project some years back. I don't have the details on hand though (I
have the magazine specially archived in a random pile somewhere in
the house).
A Tesla coil gives a pretty decent whack and is legal.
**In what sense is it legal?

Legal to build and own? Certainly.

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

 

[DavidW]

Sylvia Else wrote:

DavidW wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
news:qWBZl.3984$FI5.2954@newsfe12.iad...
John Tserkezis wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

Only slightly less portable I think. Still, your idea has merit,
and I commend it to Gordon. We certainly wouldn't want him to
cause permanent harm to anyone using the stun gun - otherwise it
would be too like a taser, and it's unlawful for a private
individual to own such a thing in Australia.
Shame really. I used to the night tafe thing in sydney and
railing it home afterwards. You get to meet some rather unsavoury
characters. Even so, some do have them, smuggled in one way or
another. Or if
you have reasonable knowledge in electronics, you can pretty much
make one yourself.
A self oscillating primary to a smallish transformer to charge
the storage caps to several hundred volts, and an scr to dump
that to a pulse transformer (or two) when the charge has reached
sufficient
levels. The transformers are very much DIY jobbies, and it
certainly helps if you have at least been versed in high voltage
pulse transformer operation and construction beforehand... If
not, be ready to make several prototypes and also to be bitten by a
crocodile at least 18 times before you're done.
If you look carefully enough, a yank engineering rag had one as a
project some years back. I don't have the details on hand though
(I have the magazine specially archived in a random pile somewhere in
the house).
A Tesla coil gives a pretty decent whack and is legal.
**In what sense is it legal?

Legal to build and own? Certainly.

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

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.

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.

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

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
news:lzFZl.49702$jT6.41834@newsfe17.iad...

Sylvia Else wrote:
DavidW wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
news:qWBZl.3984$FI5.2954@newsfe12.iad...
John Tserkezis wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

Only slightly less portable I think. Still, your idea has merit,
and I commend it to Gordon. We certainly wouldn't want him to
cause permanent harm to anyone using the stun gun - otherwise it
would be too like a taser, and it's unlawful for a private
individual to own such a thing in Australia.
Shame really. I used to the night tafe thing in sydney and
railing it home afterwards. You get to meet some rather unsavoury
characters. Even so, some do have them, smuggled in one way or
another. Or if
you have reasonable knowledge in electronics, you can pretty much
make one yourself.
A self oscillating primary to a smallish transformer to charge
the storage caps to several hundred volts, and an scr to dump
that to a pulse transformer (or two) when the charge has reached
sufficient
levels. The transformers are very much DIY jobbies, and it
certainly helps if you have at least been versed in high voltage
pulse transformer operation and construction beforehand... If
not, be ready to make several prototypes and also to be bitten by a
crocodile at least 18 times before you're done.
If you look carefully enough, a yank engineering rag had one as a
project some years back. I don't have the details on hand though
(I have the magazine specially archived in a random pile somewhere in
the house).
A Tesla coil gives a pretty decent whack and is legal.
**In what sense is it legal?

Legal to build and own? Certainly.

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

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.

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.

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

**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

 

[Sylvia Else]

DavidW wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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

I have mixed feelings about guns.

But one isn't even allowed to carry capsicum spray.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:001866aa$0$6083$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

DavidW wrote:

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.

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.


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.

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

I have mixed feelings about guns.

But one isn't even allowed to carry capsicum spray.

**Nor should one. By disallowing the carry of capsicum spray, police can
arrest and charge criminals for carrying capsicum spray. Just a reminder:
Capsicum spray works just as well as a defensive weapon, as it does for
attack. It can be used to disable a victim, so a criminal can pretty much do
whatever she wants to her victim.

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.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[DavidW]

Sylvia Else wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Whichever, I think it's safe to say that without the weapons it would be a far
less dangerous society.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:007e3818$0$17655$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:

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.

Which just shows that possession of a gun is not a perfect defence.

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

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.

**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.

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.


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.

**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

 

[Sylvia Else]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:001866aa$0$6083$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
DavidW wrote:

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.
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.

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.
Oh dear. Do you support open slather on guns and other weapons?
I have mixed feelings about guns.

But one isn't even allowed to carry capsicum spray.

**Nor should one. By disallowing the carry of capsicum spray, police can
arrest and charge criminals for carrying capsicum spray. Just a reminder:
Capsicum spray works just as well as a defensive weapon, as it does for
attack. It can be used to disable a victim, so a criminal can pretty much do
whatever she wants to her victim.

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.

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.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote in message
news:KWFZl.49703$jT6.45686@newsfe17.iad...

Sylvia Else wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

Whichever, I think it's safe to say that without the weapons it would be a
far less dangerous society.

**Of course. Sylvia fails to do even basic research to justify her homicidal
needs. The rate of violent assault is very similar in most Western,
developed nations. Clearly, Western, developed nations are all approximately
as violent as each other. Yet the rate of homicide in the US vastly eclipses
that of any other Western, developed nation. Significantly, more than 60% of
all US homicides are gun shot related.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Sylvia Else]

DavidW wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

Whichever, I think it's safe to say that without the weapons it would be a far
less dangerous society.

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.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Added aus.legal

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:007e3818$0$17655$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

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.
Which just shows that possession of a gun is not a perfect defence.

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

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.

**Your humble opinon is, of course, not noted in law. Shooting another human
will, at best, cause a manslaughter charge to be levelled.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

**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.

That doesn't address the issue of causality.

Sylvia.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:00186ac3$0$5826$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:001866aa$0$6083$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
DavidW wrote:

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.
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.

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.
Oh dear. Do you support open slather on guns and other weapons?
I have mixed feelings about guns.

But one isn't even allowed to carry capsicum spray.

**Nor should one. By disallowing the carry of capsicum spray, police can
arrest and charge criminals for carrying capsicum spray. Just a reminder:
Capsicum spray works just as well as a defensive weapon, as it does for
attack. It can be used to disable a victim, so a criminal can pretty much
do whatever she wants to her victim.

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.



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.

**Nor is the alleged 'innocent' person carrying the stuff. That means the
truly paranoid can carry capsicum spray and probably not get caught. Of
course, it is unlikely to be much use either (see previous reference to
element of surprise). The nice thing about making it illegal, of course, is
that ANYONE carrying the stuff is a criminal. Makes it nice and easy for
LEOs.

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.

**Really? How many times have you been searched whilst out and about? I've
lived in Sydney for 55 years and have never been searched. I suspect that my
experience mirrors the cast majority of residents living in the most
dangerous and deadly city in the nation.

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.

**Not so. By making it a criminal offence to carry capsicum spray, we can be
assured that if a criminal is caught with the stuff, they will be removed
from the streets. We can all support that. Same deal with guns. Carrying a
gun, whilst committing a crime, means that the police can lay extra charges.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:007b6532$0$31264$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

Added aus.legal

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:007e3818$0$17655$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

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.
Which just shows that possession of a gun is not a perfect defence.

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

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.

**Your humble opinon is, of course, not noted in law. Shooting another
human will, at best, cause a manslaughter charge to be levelled.

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.

**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.

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.

**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.

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.

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.

**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.

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.

**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.

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.

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.

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.

**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.


That doesn't address the issue of causality.

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


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Sylvia Else]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:00186ac3$0$5826$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:001866aa$0$6083$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
DavidW wrote:

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.
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.

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.
Oh dear. Do you support open slather on guns and other weapons?
I have mixed feelings about guns.

But one isn't even allowed to carry capsicum spray.
**Nor should one. By disallowing the carry of capsicum spray, police can
arrest and charge criminals for carrying capsicum spray. Just a reminder:
Capsicum spray works just as well as a defensive weapon, as it does for
attack. It can be used to disable a victim, so a criminal can pretty much
do whatever she wants to her victim.

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.


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.

**Nor is the alleged 'innocent' person carrying the stuff. That means the
truly paranoid can carry capsicum spray and probably not get caught. Of
course, it is unlikely to be much use either (see previous reference to
element of surprise). The nice thing about making it illegal, of course, is
that ANYONE carrying the stuff is a criminal. Makes it nice and easy for
LEOs.

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.

**Really? How many times have you been searched whilst out and about? I've
lived in Sydney for 55 years and have never been searched. I suspect that my
experience mirrors the cast majority of residents living in the most
dangerous and deadly city in the nation.

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.

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.

**Not so. By making it a criminal offence to carry capsicum spray, we can be
assured that if a criminal is caught with the stuff, they will be removed
from the streets. We can all support that. Same deal with guns. Carrying a
gun, whilst committing a crime, means that the police can lay extra charges.

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.

 

[Sylvia Else]

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 Wilson wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:007e3818$0$17655$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

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.
Which just shows that possession of a gun is not a perfect defence.

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

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.

**Your humble opinon is, of course, not noted in law. Shooting another human
will, at best, cause a manslaughter charge to be levelled.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

**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.

That doesn't address the issue of causality.

Sylvia.