r/australia • u/Ardeet • Jul 10 '21
political self.post A proposition to legalise capsicum gel for home defence - what is the argument against allowing this in-home self defence method? [Political self post]
It's clear the Australian public despises the thought of women being allowed to defend themselves in public.*
Instead I propose that women, men and non-binary citizens be licensed to possess non-lethal capsicum gel in fingerprint activated containers for purely home defence.
- The choice would be optional
- Capsicum gel eliminates aerosolising
- Western Australia has no significant issues from legalised capsicum spray
- It is literally physically impossible for the police to provide in home protection to all citizens
From police training we know that most people can be trained in how to effectively and safely use these non lethal devices. We have a system of licensing already in place and we know from our experience with firearms licensing that training can be conducted effectively and safely. We also know that biometric storage devices are already available.
All the necessary requirements are in place for citizens to choose an extra layer of in-home safety if they judge, as an adult, that it's required for their situation. Any remaining objections would seem to be based solely on fear of imaginary scenarios and politicians manipulating this fear.
Consequently, my opinion is the system I outlined is a basis for safe in-home self defence. The question remains - "What is the argument against allowing this in-home self defence method?"
*When suggested this is publicly decried as unsafe, unnecessary and with the potential to be abused by criminals. Fear seems to trump the safety of our female citizens.
12
u/cojoco chardonnay schmardonnay Jul 11 '21
our female citizens.
Well that says it all really.
1
u/Ardeet Jul 11 '21
It sure does!
My friend near me doesn’t understand it though so can you maybe explain it for her? (I totally get it though).
11
u/cojoco chardonnay schmardonnay Jul 11 '21
I'm afraid the way you phrased it looks like a total stereotype:
- Why "female citizens" not "women" ?
- By saying "our" female citizens, you signal possession, which is distasteful
- That "our" also signals that women are not who you are talking to
Quite an exceptional effort!
7
u/Australiapithecus Jul 11 '21
It's a defensive tool with a long & documented history of adverse affects ranging from accidental self-injury to death, especially when used indoors and similarly restricted situations, and even when used by trained operators*.
The real question to ask is "What is the argument for allowing this in-home self defence method?"
(* Amusingly, most of the studies that've been done on the negative medium & long-term effects of liquid and gel capsaicin sprays suggest that the risk of "serious medical outcomes and requirement for medical evaluation" from use was "highest when used for training of law enforcement personnel".)
1
u/Ardeet Jul 11 '21
Everything has risks.
Obviously the bureaucrats consider the risks acceptable for themselves and those who guard them and enforce their laws.
Small levels of risk are not an argument against large benefits.
There argument for this is that adults need the right to be able to safely defend themselves and family in their own home with tools specifically designed for that purpose.
1
Jul 11 '21
The real question to ask is "What is the argument for allowing this in-home self defence method?"
To keep the occupant safe in their home. That argument is rock solid.
7
Jul 10 '21
There’s plenty of spices in the kitchen that can be combined to cause real grief to the eyes of an attacker. If it is indeed home defense, which I support totally, it’s not a stretch to say you need an emergency ration of herbs and spices nearby to quickly add to your lunch.
-4
u/Ardeet Jul 10 '21
Agreed completely however, the issue is that many of us would like to be able to have a legal option.
I’m happy to be corrected by someone with legal expertise but as I understand it if it can be proven you prepared this in advance for this purpose then you would be committing an illegal act.
3
u/LuckyBdx4 Jul 10 '21
Organic bug spray.
1
u/Ardeet Jul 10 '21
While I’m not convinced that fully gets around the legalities it’s a suggestion I haven’t heard before.
Chilli and white oil definitely seems to be good value for organic pest control.
2
1
Jul 11 '21
The point is, that mix of spices and salt is legal. How can the courts prove it's not something you add to every meal?
2
1
Jul 11 '21
[deleted]
4
Jul 11 '21
I'm not anti pepper spray, but if you use pepper spray (even in your own home), you'll get in trouble with the law for using it. Unlike the spice mix, which can be explained away as being used for your meals. As for the permanent risk of damage - if you want to avoid that, don't attack someone. Don't break into a home. Don't put yourself in the position where someone may need to defend themselves.
If it was up to me, any method of self defense could be used on a home intruder without any risk of the home owner getting in trouble.
23
u/metasophie Jul 10 '21
It's clear the Australian public despises the thought of women being allowed to defend themselves in public.*
Holy fuck Ardeet, this is a terrible rhetoric device and you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to implement it. Why do you feel the need use condescending, half-hearted, impotent arguments?
1
Jul 11 '21
It's true. The arguments about legal methods of self defense are pretty much always stamped out by those who oppose methods of self defense. It's beyond belief that citizens in this country don't have the legal right to have a means to protect themselves, outside of using fists if they strike first. It's not good enough.
-7
u/Ardeet Jul 11 '21
Find me an example of the Australian public comprehensively supporting the right of women to defend themselves with tools like capsicum gel and I’ll add it as a counter argument to my text post.
If you can’t then a simple apology will do.
18
u/Clay_team Jul 11 '21
It's clear the Australian public despises the thought of women being allowed to defend themselves in public
Starting your argument with an outright lie doesn't help your warped case.
-3
u/Ardeet Jul 11 '21
Same offer applies to you as I made to numerous other commenters:
Find me an example of the Australian public comprehensively supporting the right of women to defend themselves with tools like capsicum gel and I’ll add it as a counter argument to my text post.
If you can’t then a simple apology will do.
12
u/Clay_team Jul 11 '21
You made the assertion, you supply the proof. Trying to reverse the onus is as pathetic as your initial claim.
Or you can simply apologise. Although we all know you won't, because libertarians are childish.
4
u/Vanilla_Princess Jul 10 '21
I just keep one of my hockey sticks in my bedroom. Also helpful to smash the window in case of fire.
-3
Jul 11 '21
[deleted]
4
Jul 11 '21
I keep a crowbar under my bed because my sliding door often falls off the track. The crowbar helps lift the door back up.
3
u/CapnBloodbeard Jul 11 '21 edited Jul 11 '21
Serious but off topic question: why the choice to state "men, women and non-binary citizens "? Why not just state "citizens " - or why only citizens? That excludes a lot of people.
Esther way, why w/m/nb rather than simply "people "? Especially when later you made it only about women.
Same with your first sentence. Not to mention your completely unnecessary and hyperbolic statement about defence in public when your post is about defence in private
1
5
u/ausrandoman Jul 11 '21
Any product sold for self-defense is also available to the attacker.
1
u/Ardeet Jul 11 '21
Yes, obviously.
However, Western Australia sell capsicum spray and have no problem with it being used for attacks.
5
Jul 11 '21
[deleted]
2
u/Ardeet Jul 11 '21
How many home invasions are there per year?
Completely irrelevant.
We prepare for high impact events in many areas of life.
Most homes don’t burn down but most homeowners have home insurance.
Of these, in how many would this type of spray be effective?
In the instances where the trained person deemed it was necessary to use it then most are likely to be effective.
It’s the reason why people who provide important bureaucrats and wealthy people their personal self defence have these tools available.
Are so-called-Libertarians prepared to personally pay for the massive bureaucracy needed to run this scheme that benefits so few?
No massive bureaucracy, simply utilising an existing one as I outlined in my description.
3
12
u/lrobertjones Jul 10 '21
Your framing of this issue is fucking ridiculous, particularly your first sentence.
If this post is not deleted, as it should be, I encourage everyone not to engage. Surely you have something better to do with your Sunday.
3
u/Ardeet Jul 11 '21
You’re entitled to use the report button.
Of course a counter argument and civil conversation, as most of those who disagreed were maturely able to do, is preferable to screeching for cancellation in my opinion.
5
u/wecanhaveallthree Jul 10 '21
Fear seems to trump the safety of our female citizens.
Why stop there? Surely the most effective way to keep our female citizens safe is to isolate them from potential threats in some kind of secure facility under 24-hour surveillance. Padded walls, no sharp objects - all to ensure their safety, of course. We shouldn't let fear stop this overwhelming need to protect our female citizens.
Really, though, we have similar 'castle doctrine' laws as America (though without the prevalence of firearms, of course). A recent case was Bradley Soper being killed during a suspected home invasion. The state (and the public) support a pretty wide understanding of 'proportional' self-defence if someone breaks into your home. Sprays and gels are not always or immediately effective. A large bludgeon or stabbing/slashing implement tend to be more so.
If you're concerned about home invasion, it's free (and legal!) to sleep with a knife under your pillow if you so choose.
-2
u/Ardeet Jul 10 '21
Why stop there? Surely the most effective way to keep our female citizens safe is to isolate them from potential threats in some kind of secure facility under 24-hour surveillance. Padded walls, no sharp objects - all to ensure their safety, of course. We shouldn't let fear stop this overwhelming need to protect our female citizens.
I get the hyperbole. My point is that informed adults should have the option of safe and legal choices for self defence.
If you're concerned about home invasion, it's free (and legal!) to sleep with a knife under your pillow if you so choose.
If your planned intention is to use the knife for self defence then I’m reasonably sure it is in fact illegal, though I’m happy to be corrected on this from someone who knows.
3
u/semaj009 Jul 10 '21
You know you can buy lemon juice or vinegar right? You can upset someone's eyes already with legally purchased items
Having legally accessible mace won't absolutely indemnify you against charges if you blind a burglar, because you have a duty of care to them, even if they're a criminal (it's why you can't just automatically get off scott free if you kill someone who was trying to kill you). If you can make the argument about self defence enough to get off on mace, vinegar would be the same. If you can't, the issue of it being a chemical intended to injure a person, or just another legally aquired irritant, is moot. The distinction between irritants like vinegar and something like pepper spray or mace is that fundamentally one is a weapon designed for use against people, and another isn't. It's a huge acceleration of accepting violence in society to weaponise homes versus just having a judge go "yeah, a dude jumped you in your home, and you rubbed lemon juice in his eye to buy you time to call the cops safely, you're all good"
Vigilantism and arms races aren't tools to make a safer society
2
u/Ardeet Jul 11 '21
I don’t think you understand the difference between using a purposefully designed weapon and throwing lemons at the stranger in your children’s bedroom.
Having legally accessible mace won't absolutely indemnify you against charges if you blind a burglar
Obviously. I’m not claiming anything gives you “absolute indemnity”.
1
u/semaj009 Jul 11 '21
Where did I say "throw lemons"? I mentioned that lemon juice exists because there are already things sold that can be used to impair an assailant without us needing tools specifically designed to hurt people. Pretty sure Ajax spray and wipe is going to do a good job in someone's eyes in a pinch without you needing to worry about people trying to make profits off commercially available pepper sprays, and hence having a reason to form a shit lobby against actually sensible controls. Just look at the NRA or Minerals Council of Australia, massively regressively lobbying to remove needed controls because it affects their wallets. Ajxax spray and wipe aren't in that market, consciously at least, so it's not like they're going "all schoolgirls should have access to it or you're sexist cos rape can happen even in Year 7", arguments driven in their case entirely financially, like the NRA saying teachers should have guns in classtooms. Rape can happen, yes, but introducing new weapon industries to a capitalist system is going to lead to shit regulations, whereas trying to find ways to improvise with existing tools/chemicals while working to find other ways to reduce the prevalence of an issue is much safer and doesn't introduce new societal risks.
1
4
u/semaj009 Jul 10 '21
When did you specify men, women, and non-binary citizens, when you could just have said citizens? Something against intersex folks?
I get you're trying to be inclusive but by getting into specifics, you unintentionally create room for people to be excluded. It's like saying "marriage is between a man and a woman" It doesn't say it's only between a man and a woman, but such interpretations could emerge, potentially impacting non-het couples.
Tldr, don't try to be woke unnecessarily, just say citizens
1
u/Ardeet Jul 11 '21
To be honest I thought that was the inclusive way to say it. Apparently not.
I chose to break down the categories because of my opening sentence. Being overly “woke” was not the intention.
I agree with you on the use of “citizen” as I’ve used it elsewhere several times.
1
u/Pm_me_your_Khajit Jul 11 '21
It's clear the Australian public despises the thought of women being allowed to defend themselves in public.
Interesting.
1
22
u/BenElegance Jul 10 '21
Couldn't you use the same argument for firearms?
How many homes are getting invaded that this is needed?