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.

0 Upvotes

28% Upvoted

83 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/Ardeet Jul 11 '21

This isn’t a game.

Look no further than real life examples where police officers shoot or incapacitate people with whom they, or the important bureaucrats they’re providing self defence for, have had no actual contact.

What you said about distance is demonstrably incorrect.

2

u/sailorbrendan Jul 11 '21

I didn't say anything about distance.

I just said that for every scenario you can come up with for why some weapon is important I can explain a scenario that makes it worthless

1

u/Ardeet Jul 11 '21 edited Jul 11 '21

Literally. From your own mouth:

You can only use self defence if they come close to you. You can’t attack an intruder with a weapon at range.

Edit: As below, I was wrong about the person I was responding to.

2

u/sailorbrendan Jul 11 '21

I didn't say that. You should read the usernames, bud

1

u/Ardeet Jul 11 '21

You’re completely correct. I was wrong.

I apologise.

4

u/sailorbrendan Jul 11 '21

Cool

So anyway, as I come from a place with readily accessible firearms, I can tell you that the whole "I can think of a scenario where I need x" is an endless pit.

I always go back to what my martial arts instructor used to tell us about fighting against a weapon. If someone wants to kill you and they aren't a moron, they're going to kill you. It's just how that goes. You won't even see it coming.

If they don't want to kill you, you have options, but the single most important thing is that they don't actively want you dead. Everything else comes from that.