Self-defense options and needs from around the world

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
You are right on in your comments about the NRA and their supporters. We get the same crap in Canada as well, more actually because what happens is more visible to Americans what may like our gun laws. That being said, if I was living full time in the US, where there are probably more guns than citizens floating around, I would be inclined to have one in my house and without question in rural areas. Rural would apply for me in Canada if I were to move to a rural area.
 

Traveller

Member
You are right on in your comments about the NRA and their supporters. We get the same crap in Canada as well, more actually because what happens is more visible to Americans what may like our gun laws. That being said, if I was living full time in the US, where there are probably more guns than citizens floating around, I would be inclined to have one in my house and without question in rural areas. Rural would apply for me in Canada if I were to move to a rural area.
Clearly I am the lone redneck here who has no problem with citizen owned centre-fire semi-automatic rifles. Leadership can be so lonely..... ;)

On a more serious note, what I find most frustrating is the simplistic bumper sticker jingoism that is common to both sides of the 'gun debate'. Informed discourse invites glazed eyes as the debate has become so polarised and emotive.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Clearly I am the lone redneck here who has no problem with citizen owned centre-fire semi-automatic rifles. Leadership can be so lonely..... ;)

On a more serious note, what I find most frustrating is the simplistic bumper sticker jingoism that is common to both sides of the 'gun debate'. Informed discourse invites glazed eyes as the debate has become so polarised and emotive.
Yep, but having used semi auto & fully auto weapons namely FN L1A1 SLR 7.62 x 51 mm battle rifle, Sterling 9mm SMG, Browning 9 mm pistol, Browning HB HMG 50 cal, Steyr 5.56 mm rifle plus personally owned Lee Enfield No 4 Mk 1* .303 battle rifle and various family owned .22 rifles and shotguns, I have since the age of 18 never ever, seen nor understood the need for military style semi automatic weapons to be operated / owned by civilians.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
“The need for military style semi-automatic weapons” is the heart of the issue. In certain parts of the world that need is real but for places like Canada, Australia, and NZ, zero need. The only reason for the US is the Second Amendment which has pretty much let the genie out of the bottle. I can’t see any way to removing hundreds of millions of guns already out there.
 

Traveller

Member
We are getting off track here as the thread was about self-defence requirements but I see personal values and beliefs overlaying the topic. Let me be clear, I support citizen ownership of centre-fire semi-auto rifles. This is about my passion for practical rifle shooting which is banned or limited here and many other places. I enjoy as a hobbyist such firearms. Hopefully I have seperated the need for ownership issue from the appropriate firearm in a given defensive scenario. So lets park that thought as it is off topic.

For defensive firearms there is no single answer in my opinion. Where I currently live I would not use a para-military carbine because of over-penetration risks to mine and neighbours. A 9mm with frangible ammo would be fine. To look at a defensive long arm here I would look to a 12g pump with No4 shot. We are talking tools in a tool-box. The tool most appropriate for the job.

A caveat here is what is legal may also determine the actual choice.

Your Token Redneck
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I have to admit Australia’s ban on semi-auto and pump action shotguns is rather extreme IMO as these guns are valuable to bird hunters and are allowed in Canada as are semi-auto rifles. Losing the latter type (large calbre) to a ban wouldn’t bother me much.
 

seaspear

Active Member
In the state of Victoria section 462a of the 1958 crimes act states "A person may use such force not disproportionate to the objective that he believes on reasonable grounds to be necessary to prevent the commission continuance or completion of an indictable act or to effect or to assist in the effecting the lawful arrest of a person committing or suspected of committing any offence"
Any force must not be disproportionate to the objective and would also require the person to know the difference between indictable and summary offences or face charges themselves.
 

Jason Mordecai

New Member
In South Africa you are free to carry concealed firearms and blades. Our crime rate is high enough to justify this. The law treats the use of force subjectively. If you are a small woman attacked by three burly unarmed men and you use a weapon, it may well go in your favour. End of the day no matter what country you are in there are three general rules you must apply:
  1. Survive the situation
  2. Survive the legal system
  3. Survive your conscious (did you make the right decision?)
 

Nighthawk.NZ

Active Member
I have to admit Australia’s ban on semi-auto and pump action shotguns is rather extreme IMO as these guns are valuable to bird hunters and are allowed in Canada as are semi-auto rifles. Losing the latter type (large calbre) to a ban wouldn’t bother me much.
Nowhere near as bad as all the bans here in New Zealand ... it was a unthought through law...
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
  • Survive the situation
  • Survive the legal system
  • Survive your conscious (did you make the right decision?)
Yes, that is true, but some of those are hard or impossible situations to correctly take in a pressure moment. It is also very hard to judge if you are not familiar with the circumstances, laws, that a relevant. And it can be a paper thin difference between innocent and guilty. It might even take 10+ years for teams of experts to answer it.

Australia has a very low crime rate, and gun crime is impossibly low. So Australia's stance on self protection with a gun by civilians makes perfect sense. Police and security guards carry guns here, and you can apply to the state Police commissioner if you feel it is required, but it at that level and that rare such things would be considered. Your situation is so special that the head of the police and probably a minister in the government are aware.

Nowhere near as bad as all the bans here in New Zealand ... it was a unthought through law...
They did draft it very quickly. I don't see that as a particularly positive outcome. For Australia it was a very extensive process, and a huge amount of considerations, and it was focused on long term good. In the end while you won't make everyone happy, the facts speak for themselves. IMO I don't think they have fully assess the risks and concerns, which is how NZ ended up in this case in the first place. Missed opportunity to do a lot of good.

I have to admit Australia’s ban on semi-auto and pump action shotguns is rather extreme IMO as these guns are valuable to bird hunters and are allowed in Canada as are semi-auto rifles. Losing the latter type (large calbre) to a ban wouldn’t bother me much.
You would be surprised how things have adapted and a new medium found. Large calibres are still legal here (.50 BMG or greater), but are very specific that the entire list of owners and addresses of such weapons nationally would easily fit on one A4 peice of paper. Its so small that people in this strata make it so there are no incidents related to these types of weapons to draw attention to them.

Lever actions are quite popular here and IMO take more skill to use. Professional hunters can still access semi automatic weapons. But you are talking about people who kill hundreds of thousands of camels from helicopter type hunters that make a hundred kills a day every day.

No one here wants things to go back to how they used to be. Also there is significant inertia to changing things unless there is a very strong argument, data and facts around the issue. Some things do need to change, and that is hard. Sydney had a big problem with one punch kills, so there was a some rash legislation/action on that. But with guns there is huge inertia, states would have to agree, you open up the can of 'what ever you do isn't enough anyway' costs go through the roof, it can split party support bases city/country etc.

Australia has more guns now than before the bans.
Australia has more guns than before Port Arthur massacre, research shows

There is the occasional issue, but often media beat up is to blame.
https://ssaavic.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Adler-facts.pdf

In Australia the chance that you are going to be shot is basically zero. If you are shot, it is likely you are the one who pulled the trigger and you have shot yourself. You are better off carrying a snake bite kit than a gun for protection and you are safer without a gun than with one (less accidental shootings). Most of Australia you are effectively not allowed to carry a knife (without proper cause and self defence isn't a proper cause) so again, really the biggest "personal safety" issue around getting punched in the head, losing consciousness and your head hitting the pavement.

You can own swords. I have a lovely collection of hand made reproduction swords. But again, not for protection (a giant scottish Claymore isn't really practical for that, but would have deterrent capability). You can go fishing with a 12 inch bowie knife, no problems, but obviously walking around the city that would be inappropriate.


Also note South Africa isn't on that chart.

In regards to murder and crime rate:


Yes, South Africa is pretty bad, but not the worst. The whole of the America's shares the US's affinity for gun ownership. But (visibly) arming myself would be the last of the precautions I would take. Ideally I would have someone else armed and being the first target, while clear that I am not an easy target and there is multiple ways of doing that. Great force tends to attract equal response.

When I travel to higher risk countries, there are many things you can do to improve your safety and security, and arming yourself is pretty much the very last and most desperate of those measures. Ideally like all risks, personal protective equipment is your last resort, you put all other measures in place before it you would want to rely on that. Also PPE often makes people take higher risks, as can happen with firearm carries. The firearm is a risk itself. Also engage, when they could more safely withdraw. To use option A instead of looking for option B. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Being armed also makes you rank way higher on other peoples threat list.

But again, I say that as a temporary visitor.

That said, I am a reasonable shot across a variety of calibers and types. Whenever I travel with armed security, I very subtly take note of what they are carrying, where, left or right handed, condition, status, wear, setup, cover, exits and alternatives etc. No reason to be ignorant or lazy. Good to know the limitations. Situations can change. Opportunities may require a change in status or tactic. Trust can be broken. You want good decisions being made, not mistakes.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Nowhere near as bad as all the bans here in New Zealand ... it was a unthought through law...
Don't go near it. Certain Mod has very fond memories of hanging off a Browning 50 cal M2 HB HMG with 200 round belts in the attached ammo box :D and the trusty FN L1A1 SLR. I used to own a No 4 Mk1* .303, but sold it years ago and now its an illegal weapon. Go figure.

However I have never seen the requirement or need for semi automatic and automatic battle rifles and assault weapons to be in civilian hands. Yes I had a No 4 Mk1* .303, but that was for hunting and it was a bolt action. Those weapons are designed and built for war - for killing of fellow humans and nothing else. They are not for the recreation hunting of deer, thar, possums, ducks, etc. In the NZ context you don't need a 50 cal to hunt thar. If you shoot it 2 miles away, that's 2 bloody probably 1,000 m near vertical ridges you have to climb to recover it. Bugger that.
 

Nighthawk.NZ

Active Member
However I have never seen the requirement or need for semi automatic and automatic battle rifles and assault weapons to be in civilian hands.
If the law changes stopped there... I would have been ok with it... people weren't even allowed to convert some of the antiques in collections...

and the other thing that f.... errrr... pissed me off was they kept changing and updating and adding to the list right up to nearly the last day...

Like I said it was an unthought through rushed law...

Yes I had a No 4 Mk1* .303, but that was for hunting and it was a bolt action. Those weapons are designed and built for war - for killing of fellow humans and nothing else. They are not for the recreation hunting of deer, thar, possums, ducks, etc. In the NZ context you don't need a 50 cal to hunt thar. If you shoot it 2 miles away, that's 2 bloody probably 1,000 m near vertical ridges you have to climb to recover it. Bugger that.
But, but yes ... yes you do need 50 cal to hunt possums, ducks... I mean have yo... oh wait... ummmmm lol. My semi-auto Ruger .22 which was great for bunny shooting :(

I actually agree with you don't need a 50 cal to hunting...
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
How old is the data set? I find Mexico’s position surprising.
That is I believe 2010 from Wikipedia. So its not current, but I don't imagine things have calmed down a whole lot in mexico since 2010.
List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia

The BBC one is 2015. Are you surprised its that low or that high. Mexico has nearly always had very high murder rates, they used to be a lot higher up on the list.
However I have never seen the requirement or need for semi automatic and automatic battle rifles and assault weapons to be in civilian hands. Yes I had a No 4 Mk1* .303, but that was for hunting and it was a bolt action. Those weapons are designed and built for war - for killing of fellow humans and nothing else. They are not for the recreation hunting of deer, thar, possums, ducks, etc. In the NZ context you don't need a 50 cal to hunt thar. If you shoot it 2 miles away, that's 2 bloody probably 1,000 m near vertical ridges you have to climb to recover it. Bugger that.
Yes, but here in Australia everything is very flat and lots of open space. So game can see you from several km away. I jest, the .50 cal is exclusively a long range target shooting rifle. Used in specific long range competitions. So I would seem a bit silly to ban it, as it bans a very interesting and competitive competition. (although .50cals aren't ideal for it, they form a sub class and are quite fun to shoot and any ban would likely ban other similar high power calibers, you might as well ban very useful guns like shot guns as well, as they can be loaded with just as energetic (short range) slugs).
Fifty Caliber Shooters Association (Fcsa) - 1000 Yard Rifle Matches 50bmg Erl, Very High Power Magazine Extreme Long-range Accuracy
Long Range Precision - SSAA Victoria
SSAA Long Range Shooting Club

Ultimately the caliber doesn't really matter according to the data. Australia's restrictions are often misunderstood, and there is really no restriction on calibre, other than the distinction between rim fire and center fire.

Again its focused around not using firearms as protection anyway. It is more like a restricted tool.

I would imagine the worst context in NZ to .50 BMG usage is hauling the dam thing up a hill in the first place. I also can't imagine any NZ game that would be left to pick up after a .50 BMG hit. Not sure also if hunters would spent $15 a shot. Plus carrying munitions makes more than a dozen a major chore really requiring wheeled or tracked calvary support.

Australia has a long list of large game including Camels (>600kg), water bufflo (can be >1000Kg), salties >(1000kg). .308 .338 etc are usually used because they are flatter and cheaper than the artillery like .50. If you have to shoot 100,000 camels, the cost per shot becomes a big issue, and they conduct multiple studies regarding how effectively they kill the animal and if its humane. But if you allow a .338, why ban the more expensive, heavier, less mobile, standard .50 cal bmg?

What I found very curious is NZ recent relaxed attitude to things like silencers and suppressors. Apparently they worked well with semi autos, for rabbit hunting. You could take out whole fields, as with no loud sound report, they just kept chewing grass instead of scattering. It also apparently result in less noise complaints another whole thing probably unique to NZ. South Australia AFAIK was the only state to allow them, again because of the rabbit problem they had.

Getting back to security.

In a civilian security context, large calibres are really not needed and a huge hindrance. If you are shooting up against hardened forces, or out gunned/out ranged something is very, very wrong. You are no longer in civilian space, you are in a combat zone. Sometimes guarded civilians have been mistaken as military targets. Could be a bigger risk than a random crime incident.

Again, probably not going to happen in South Africa. But Nepal, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, some south American and Africa countries, sure. There is a whole gulf of risk difference between travelling in the front seat/back of the tray of local beat up car, verse zooming around in the back of an armored landcruiser/merc with with leading and trailing armed escorts. One attracts no attention. The other becomes a RPG/bullet magnet for every disaffected group in the entire region (which may or may not include police forces or military forces). You will be tailed from your hotel.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
OFF TOPIC
I would imagine the worst context in NZ to .50 BMG usage is hauling the dam thing up a hill in the first place. I also can't imagine any NZ game that would be left to pick up after a .50 BMG hit. Not sure also if hunters would spent $15 a shot. Plus carrying munitions makes more than a dozen a major chore really requiring wheeled or tracked calvary support.
Yep, get the odd fool that takes a .50 cal rifle into the mountains. We have Himilayan Thar up there and sometimes the only way you can shoot them is a very long shot. Also have wild wallaby in the central South Island which is a pest and it's expanding south - hundreds of the buggers. There's deer as well with some quite large animals. Rumours of the odd moose in Fiordland, but none have been reliably reported for about 90 years. 10 were released in 1910 Could an uber-moose take over Fiordland?.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
@StingrayOZ ...I am surprised Mexico isn’t higher as violence there has been on the increase over the last several years. Also, Canada would be higher on the BBC list now as gun murders in Toronto have significantly increased in the last two years.

@John Fedup Political rant in post deleted. You have been on here long enough to know that politics is against the rules. Any more and you will be in trouble.

Ngatimozart.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
In my opinion Brass knuckles are on of the most popular and best weapons used as Self Defense.
G'day @Hannah Baker and welcome to the forum. We look forward to your contributions to the ongoing discussions and please take time to familiarise yourself with the rules. Ah yes, ye olde brass knuckles, always good for some gentle persausion.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
But certainly not able to be carried legally in any jurisdiction in Australia, so far as I know.
 

Boagrius

Active Member
Having taken up MMA in my late teens and continued with it for 8 years thereafter (decided to discontinue due to accumulation of injuries) I've got to say I am a big fan of Parkour (aka "Runkido") as possibly one of the most effective forms of self defence. :D

All jokes aside, it strikes me that a lot of self defence dogma assumes the need to engage in and win violent conflict with any assailant or group thereof. To my mind, anchoring oneself into a physical clash exposes you to 3rd parties entering the fray, deprives you of valuable SA and exposes you to injury or incapacitation from unseen weapons or unexpectedly skilled opponents. 15 years ago I could count on the fact that anyone I encountered on the street would be unlikely to understand the fundamentals of striking or grappling, giving me a lopsided technical advantage over the vast majority of people. The popularisation of MMA in the intervening years alongside related martial arts like BJJ, Judo, collegiate/freestyle wrestling and boxing means this is no longer a safe assumption.

To use brass knuckles as an example - for an individual with no grappling experience facing an unarmed assailant who is a proficient grappler, they would be as good as useless. The effect of a well timed and executed takedown followed by a rapid transition to dominant position and incapacitating submission hold tends to completely nullify an opponent constrained to upright punching, and attempting to punch while grounded generally only provides a grappler with positional openings to exploit.

To use a rough example - take the UFC bout between Randy Couture (an aged but very experienced grappler) against James Tony (an aged but expert boxer with next to no grappling experience). Couture launches an almost comically telegraphed takedown, to which Tony nevertheless has no defence:


What follows is essentially a fait accompli. To my mind being grounded and pinned like this on the street is ultimately what one needs to avoid at all costs.
 
Last edited:
Top