PRC as a amplifier in GPS question.

[John Tserkezis]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Disallowing the carry of *any* weapon makes the job of police much easier.

Too bad the only ones who are voluntarily handing over their firearms are
the law abiding citizens.

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.

They're not paranoid. Everyone *IS* out to get them.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

 

[Gordon Lightfoot III]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:79on8dF1qk3k4U1@mid.individual.net...

"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.

I heard you have some electrostatic speakers hooked up to those home made ME
amps, and everytime a stranger comes near your place, you turn it up to 9
and play some
dame kiri te kanawa and they run away, shrieking in pain.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:007e4116$0$17647$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

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.

**I never said I wanted it both ways. I stated that personal carry of
capsicum spray is a bad idea for a bunch of reasons:

1) It is essentially useless against a surprise attack (which is most of
them).
2) It can be used as an offensive weapon.
3) By making it illegal, there are more options for the police when they do
catch offenders.
4) It may cause an escalation of violence.
5) It may give the user a false sense of security.
6) Using your rather banal logic, we could make the carry of bio-weapons
legal, because they are difficult to detect.

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.

**Now you're suddenly making one law for some and another law for others.
That is repugnant. In our society, it simply does not work that way. One law
for all (theoretically).


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Bruce Varley]

"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.

Have you ever been zapped by a Tesla coil? There's a burning sensation at

the contact point, but no electrocution feeling at all. The frequency is too
high to cause any muscular response.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"John Tserkezis" <jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:4a3751e3$0$12666$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Disallowing the carry of *any* weapon makes the job of police much
easier.

Too bad the only ones who are voluntarily handing over their firearms are
the law abiding citizens.

**An oft-cited and simplistic view. The facts are more prosaic:

1) The vast majority of all firearms are sold from the factory legally.
2) The problem of proliferation of firearms amongst criminals occurs due to
secondary sales and haphazard laws in certain places (notably, the USA).
3) Thanks to Australian mandatory storage laws, the number of guns stolen
from legal owners is falling each year. In the US, where it is legal to keep
a loaded handgun in the (unlocked) desk drawer, stolen guns are a major
problem. As are secondary gun sales (many from so-called 'gun shows'). Many
of these secondary gun sales, cause an influx of guns into Australia (and
other places).
4) Illegal secondary gun sales (ie: Legal gun owner selling a gun to a known
criminal) is virtually non-existent in Australia, thanks to our sane, strong
gun control laws.
5) As criminals are caught (and many are caught), their guns are
confiscated. Thus, if proper controls were instituted in places like the US,
fewer illegal guns would end up in the hands of Australian criminals.
Eventually, almost no criminal would have access to guns.

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.

They're not paranoid. Everyone *IS* out to get them.

**Both, inside the country and outside. Americans are a very paranoid and
frightened bunch. Sylvia would be right at home.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Gordon Lightfoot III" <gli@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:79p3q4F1s1h02U1@mid.individual.net...

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:79on8dF1qk3k4U1@mid.individual.net...

"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.

I heard you have some electrostatic speakers hooked up to those home made
ME amps, and everytime a stranger comes near your place, you turn it up to
9 and play some
dame kiri te kanawa and they run away, shrieking in pain.

**I found these photos of you, Gordo:

http://www.smh.com.au/ftimages/2009/04/21/1240079645262.html

It would seem that you've already visited Jaycar and picked up enough
goodies for your own stun-gun.

Kudos. The 'Thinker' was a nice touch.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"Bruce Varley" <bxvarley@weastnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:M9adnXFUfv-R9KrXnZ2dnUVZ8nmdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...

"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.

Have you ever been zapped by a Tesla coil? There's a burning sensation at
the contact point, but no electrocution feeling at all. The frequency is
too high to cause any muscular response.

**Skin effect (literally). In large systems, however, there is a lot of
energy available. Sufficient to cause burns.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:18:04 +1000, DavidW wrote:

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.

Given that some attempted or successful thefts also cause life long
injury to some people, I think it is fair.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_john@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d587627e-a8b4-4974-9670-5267d50f57da@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 16, 7:38 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

**I never said I wanted it both ways. I stated that personal carry of
capsicum spray is a bad idea for a bunch of reasons:

1) It is essentially useless against a surprise attack (which is most of
them).
CITE?

**The killing of Des Moran and all the other Moran family member who have
been murdered.

2) It can be used as an offensive weapon.
CITE? when where and how?

**Spra it into the eyes of the intended victim.

3) By making it illegal, there are more options for the police when they
do
catch offenders.
Unless it of course involves an illegal semi-automatic pistol, in the

hands of a violent ofender, but with the serial number ground off?

**I don't answer idiotic rhetorical questions. This will be the last time I
explain this to you, THIS MONTH. Ask a 9 year old to explain it to you.

4) It may cause an escalation of violence.
How? please explain?

**Capsicum spray at 2 Metres.

5) It may give the user a false sense of security.
Prove it?

**What do you understand by the word "may"? Get a 9 year old to explain it
to you.

6) Using your rather banal logic, we could make the carry of bio-weapons
legal, because they are difficult to detect.
That's your strawman, you burn it.

Leave the adults alone. Go and play with your moronic mates. Maybe you'd
rather torture an inmate? Have you have your blood lead levels checked
recently? What was the figure? Either you are a complete and utter moron, or
you may be suffereing the effects of lead poisoning, which is not uncommon
amongst regular shooters. Which is it? A re you a moron, or are you
suffering heavy metal poisoning?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:38:16 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:

A That is why the police don't get prosecuted in such
situations. They don't have any special power to kill people.

My reality 2c is that the main reason they do not get prosecuted is tha
it is their mates who would have to perform such a duty.

 

[atec 7 7]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

"John Tserkezis" <jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote in message
news:4a3751e3$0$12666$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
Trevor Wilson wrote:

Disallowing the carry of *any* weapon makes the job of police much
easier.
Too bad the only ones who are voluntarily handing over their firearms are
the law abiding citizens.

**An oft-cited and simplistic view. The facts are more prosaic:

1) The vast majority of all firearms are sold from the factory legally.

irrelevant

2) The problem of proliferation of firearms amongst criminals occurs due to
secondary sales and haphazard laws in certain places (notably, the USA).

incorrect in many respects and certainly not germane

3) Thanks to Australian mandatory storage laws, the number of guns stolen
from legal owners is falling each year.
yes and

In the US, where it is legal to keep

a loaded handgun in the (unlocked) desk drawer, stolen guns are a major
problem. As are secondary gun sales (many from so-called 'gun shows'). Many
of these secondary gun sales, cause an influx of guns into Australia (and
other places).
another unsubstantiated lie

4) Illegal secondary gun sales (ie: Legal gun owner selling a gun to a known
criminal) is virtually non-existent in Australia, thanks to our sane, strong
gun control laws.
liar it's in fact in spite of

5) As criminals are caught (and many are caught)
and most are not you goose

their guns are

confiscated.
a tiny percentage and easily replaced

Thus, if proper controls were instituted in places like the US,
another lie , most states have excellent laws a few do not and that
is changing however the us does have no bearing at all on us .

fewer illegal guns would end up in the hands of Australian criminals.
Eventually, almost no criminal would have access to guns.
if that were true you would be a much smarter person , it's not and

you're not .

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.
They're not paranoid. Everyone *IS* out to get them.

**Both, inside the country and outside.
cite and url thanks , most yanks are ok folks

Americans are a very paranoid and

frightened bunch.
if you continue to lie in this manner you will be struck deaf and

unable to speak as well as dumb
Sylvia would be right at home.
wrong again

 

[John Tserkezis]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Skin effect (literally). In large systems, however, there is a lot of
energy available. Sufficient to cause burns.

I worked on a unit that was designed for the dental market. Operates at
1Mhz or so, had a square pad you get the patient to sit or lie down on. The
probe on the other end does the work.

Didn't appear to have HUGE amounts of juice by gauging on the size of the
transformer (~30mm bobbin), but did quite well.

Designed to congeal blood or seal wounds/cuts/etc. Wasn't about to test the
thing on myself, but used a sausage instead. Filled the kitchen with a burnt
smell, can only imagine how it would smell in a dental surgery...
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 16, 3:00 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
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.

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 Wilsonwww.rageaudio.com.au-

==========================================Hi everyone,

Please excuse the inane rantings of my dear friend Trevor Tosspot,
Trevor often gets spanked badly for telling porkies on gun related
groups, and then runs off to other groups to spread his venom and bile
concerning guns, gun owners and Americans. He figures no-one here will
challenge him and he can diseminate his lies and bullshit. He's told
some real clangers over the years, just visit aus.politics.guns and do
a search for "Trevor Tosspot's Porky List".

Last time it was to rec.audio.opinion and aus. hi-fi.

Here's an example of the sort of "sane" gun laws that dear Trevor
supports

---------------------------------------------
Firearms legal loophole helps Victorian criminals
May 05, 2009 12:00am
ANGLE grinders and a legal loophole are helping violent criminals
beat
Victoria's most serious firearms charge.

A court ruling from two years ago is enabling them to stave off
charges of being a prohibited person in possession of an unregistered
firearm.

In the 2007 case, a court ruled a man charged with that offence be
cleared because the weapon's identifying numbers had been removed.

He was able to successfully argue it could not be established the
Glock semi-automatic pistol at the centre of the case was
unregistered. The charge carries a maximum sentence of 15 years.

It is designed to deter people on the prohibited list from carrying
firearms.

The Herald Sun believes other successful defences against the charge
using the same argument have been mounted since the 2007 decision.

Prosecution of a violent Melbourne criminal on the charge was
withdrawn this year because the gun could not be identified.

A spokesman for Police Minister Bob Cameron said the Government was
talking to Victoria Police.

----------------------------------------------------

Hey Trevor, tell us again about your friend who can STOP his heart?

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 16, 7:38 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

**I never said I wanted it both ways. I stated that personal carry of
capsicum spray is a bad idea for a bunch of reasons:

1) It is essentially useless against a surprise attack (which is most of
them).
CITE?
2) It can be used as an offensive weapon.
CITE? when where and how?
3) By making it illegal, there are more options for the police when they do
catch offenders.
Unless it of course involves an illegal semi-automatic pistol, in the

hands of a violent ofender, but with the serial number ground off?

4) It may cause an escalation of violence.
How? please explain?
5) It may give the user a false sense of security.
Prove it?
6) Using your rather banal logic, we could make the carry of bio-weapons
legal, because they are difficult to detect.
That's your strawman, you burn it.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Added aus.legal

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**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.

Both police and civilians get subject to a rigorous and penetrating
investigative process. But in the absence of wrongdoing, that's as far
as it goes.

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.

I wouldn't kill someone just because they demanded my wallet. But if
they make a credible threat to kill me or inflict serious bodily injury,
then I would act to obviate the threat (assuming I were able), even if
that involved killing them. And I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

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.

I don't think that's true. The police know that where self defence is
raised, the prosecution has to negate it beyond reasonable doubt. In
situations where it's credible that the deceased threatened the accused
with death or serious bodily harm (for example, with a gun or knife),
and in the absence of contradictory evidence, no prosecution is likely.

The cases that go to court are those that lie in the murky area of
excessive self defence (for example, killing an assailant who didn't
represent a serious threat).

That doesn't address the issue of causality.

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

Why? It seems entirely plausible that people carry guns in the USA
because it's a violent society, not the other way around.

Sylvia.

 

[John - Melb]

On Jun 16, 8:15 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:d587627e-a8b4-4974-9670-5267d50f57da@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 16, 7:38 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au
wrote:

**I never said I wanted it both ways. I stated that personal carry of
capsicum spray is a bad idea for a bunch of reasons:

1) It is essentially useless against a surprise attack (which is most of
them).

CITE?

**The killing of Des Moran and all the other Moran family member who have
been murdered.

So you're claiming these people were in possession of capsicum spray
at the time of their murders?

2) It can be used as an offensive weapon.

CITE? when where and how?

**Spra it into the eyes of the intended victim.

And you've claimed how many times you "only deal in facts"? Conjecture
isn't acceptable, when, where and how has capsicum spray been used as
an offensive weapon in Australia?

3) By making it illegal, there are more options for the police when they
do
catch offenders.

Unless it of course involves an illegal semi-automatic pistol, in the
hands of a violent ofender, but with the serial number ground off?

**I don't answer idiotic rhetorical questions. This will be the last time I
explain this to you, THIS MONTH. Ask a 9 year old to explain it to you.

But you support these laws, therefore the question is neither idiotic
or rhetorical, it's simpley "too hard" for you to answer.

4) It may cause an escalation of violence.

How? please explain?

**Capsicum spray at 2 Metres.

See my comments above re. conjecture, you only deal in facts,
remember?

5) It may give the user a false sense of security.

Prove it?

**What do you understand by the word "may"? Get a 9 year old to explain it
to you.

Alright , explain how carriage of capsicum spray would give someone a
false sense of security?

6) Using your rather banal logic, we could make the carry of bio-weapons
legal, because they are difficult to detect.

That's your strawman, you burn it.

Leave the adults alone. Go and play with your moronic mates. Maybe you'd
rather torture an inmate? Have you have your blood lead levels checked
recently? What was the figure? Either you are a complete and utter moron, or
you may be suffereing the effects of lead poisoning, which is not uncommon
amongst regular shooters. Which is it?  A re you a moron, or are you
suffering heavy metal poisoning?

Do you refer to the "moronic mates" who hand you a spanking everytime
you're caught telling porkies? Your qualifications to ask questions
about my medical history is exactly what? Are you claiming to be a
doctor now?

Tell us again about your friend who can STOP his heart?

 

[John - Melb]

Hey Trev, give us a kiss

____________________________________
Trevor Tosspot's Porky List

*I have a friend who can STOP his heart

*Their is ample evidence to support the fact that possession of an
inanimate object is capable of altering a cognitive persons intent

*The FBI-UCR for the years 1976-86 are available on the FBI web-site

*My local library has Lott's work in the fiction section

*20% of Australian homes possess firearms

*I only deal in facts

*The firearms related murder rate in the US is 10,000,000 PA.

*gun licences back in the 1920s led to a drop in the murder rate,

*How the British 1903 Pistol Act was enacted and enforced in
Australia prior to Federation.

*How an audit of Government owned arms at Sydney Cove in 1796 was a
gun control law
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Trevor Wilson]

"John - Melb" <mcnamara_john@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:78f4fe9e-8be6-4e61-b3de-cc0ccbd5cb08@h28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 16, 10:23 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:

Added aus.legal

Trevor Wilson wrote:
**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.

Both police and civilians get subject to a rigorous and penetrating
investigative process. But in the absence of wrongdoing, that's as far
as it goes.

So, according to Trevor, civilians that have undergone such training,
are fine carrying deadly weapons as they go about their daily
business?

**Read what I wrote. If you have trouble understanding my words, get someone
to explain it to you.


Trevor, you really are a sad pathetic soul, and rather confused.

**Clearly, you are the confused one. Get a 9 year old to explain what I
wrote to you.


I have undergone such training, therefore, according to Trevor
Tosspot, it should be fine for me to carry a dealy weapon as I go
about my daily business. However the same Trevor Tosspot has
previously asserted that I am a nut-job who should not be permitted
any access to firearms whatsoever?

**You ARE a nut job. Nut jobs should not have any access to firearms. Ever.
That is just good public policy. Unless you feel that it makes sense for nut
jobs to have access to firearms, of course.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Epsilon]

Sylvia Else wrote:

Added aus.legal

Trevor Wilson wrote:

**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.

Both police and civilians get subject to a rigorous and penetrating
investigative process. But in the absence of wrongdoing, that's as far
as it goes.


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.

I wouldn't kill someone just because they demanded my wallet. But if
they make a credible threat to kill me or inflict serious bodily
injury, then I would act to obviate the threat (assuming I were
able), even if that involved killing them. And I wouldn't lose any
sleep over it.
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.

I don't think that's true. The police know that where self defence is
raised, the prosecution has to negate it beyond reasonable doubt. In
situations where it's credible that the deceased threatened the
accused with death or serious bodily harm (for example, with a gun or
knife), and in the absence of contradictory evidence, no prosecution
is likely.
The cases that go to court are those that lie in the murky area of
excessive self defence (for example, killing an assailant who didn't
represent a serious threat).


That doesn't address the issue of causality.

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


Why? It seems entirely plausible that people carry guns in the USA
because it's a violent society, not the other way around.

Unless there is some evidence that the society in the USA is more inherently
violent than other countries, it's not entirely plausible.

It is more likely that, because people can carry guns, more people will be
shot than if people did not carry guns. That would include the police, of
course.

 

[Epsilon]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

Get a 9 year old to explain what I wrote to you.

Hmmm.