Well no we don’t want to centralise the prescribing of weapons to Australians. But I bring up the AA12 for the purpose of showing how we can come to a very good compromise that can lead to a heavily armed civilianry without too much blowback. It would really be better for home-protection purposes, if the always-lethal rounds are buried in the back yard, more in the desert, and some kept at the tax-free rifle range that is licensed in every suburb.
Yes there will be blowback from even the less-lethal stuff. But lets fast-track it out there anyway. The license for the less-lethal stuff going to anyone whose word is good and swears that he will put in the hard yards to leave a live defendant. Perhaps it ought not be the Feds that handle it. The local mayor, in conjunction with an insurance company. They say your word is good and indemnify you, well your goal is to be so awesomely powerful that you can afford to leave a live defendant.
For our shooters and for people who want to take advantage of our current requirements, I’m not advocating more restrictions, and we have to guard against that. What I’m advocating is opening up a lot more of the less-lethal stuff.
But I argue that with your stored lethal gear in the ground, in the desert, and at the rifle range, the less-lethal gear, if married with awesome firepower ………. well this mix is actually superior defense then the totally lethal gear. BECAUSE YOU WILL HESITATE A FRACTION OF A SECOND LESS.
So you are there with your AA12 shotgun and your metal-storm handguns and the rounds are designed-to, with a bit of luck, leave a live defendant. Well you have an awesome amount of power there. No question about it. And there is another reason why this is superior defense. Because under these conditions we can all be Bo Gritz and have a loaded gun in every room. We can have Granny getting about the house with her metal storm pistol holstered on her shapely hip……..
((((British readers need to know that our grannies are like they are on neighbours and still look good in a bikini.))))))…..
We can have that extra level of readiness on tap on the very grounds that the rounds are less-lethal.
With these less-lethal rounds and this great technology then who should be able to have the LETHAL STUFF??? Well all of us for storage. But the people who ought to have the more-lethal stuff on hand, ought to have sufficient expertise to try and leave a live defendant in almost all circumstances. We need to make he primacy of human life the goal.
This principle works in well with our shooters. Because our serious shooters and our shooting instructors have presumably a high level of expertise. And so they are likely to be willing to invest more in this area, and as well have a greater margin of error due to their expertise. So naturally I see no reason to curb our sporting shooters access to what they already have. We could start by talking to them. And telling them that they have a special responsibility. To act well and to help keep our rights evergreen.
The policy favouring an armed civilianry is the hardest policy option I’ve had to consider. For me it is not acceptable to but firearms policy on the back-burner.
When we consider this story we need to look at detail . And basically there are four categories of “CONCERNS” we need to consider, with armed civilianary policy.
1. The natural right to self-defense and to aid in the defense of ones friends, neighbours and family. As well as people that friends of yours have left in your trust. Some theorists suggest that there is no such right. I say that they are wrong. I say that this is a clear right. But there are strong arguments to compromise this natural right if the means in which you will express this right tend to infringe on other people.
2. We have the issue of DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY. As well as the issue of blowback from ubiquitous arms, which I’ll group together.
3. We have the issue of THE DETERRENCE OF TYRANNY.
4. We have the issue of NATIONAL SECURITY.
Now if it is the case, not as a matter of regulation, but of common practice, that you drinking too much and YOU making a mistake and the other bloke, either feeling threatened or making a mistake…. if that as a matter of practice leads to cracked ribs, a stint in hospital, and gentlemans compensation running either way…. to me thats better than a permanent solution to a momentary problem.
In terms of defending against tyranny, to quickly have that sort of firepower in so many non-government hands……… but to have the more-lethal ordnance in reserve …………. well this means that under the duress of the threat of tyranny, the lethal stuff will be used….. but bloody hell. Even having the less-lethal stuff, with that awesome level of firepower, would really leave the Prodeo crowd a dream short. A dream short when it comes to their dreams of tyranny.
Now we come to the story of national defense. Well naturally enough if our people have ALREADY ON HAND and are familiar with weapons like the AA12 shotgun and the metal storm handgun…………. well my goodness. Even if the superpower enemy, knocked out the sharp end of our spear, you can best believe that they will prefer to negotiate with a free and armed country. Free and armed in reality and not just in principle.
Every house with pretty good security ought to marry the AA12 and the metal storm handgun with less-lethal ordnance. I have no other conclusion after going through the four categories by which we judge the DETAIL of our policy from.