The Instigator
Pro (for)
Anonymous
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
JJ2_pro
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Self defence in Australia

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Anonymous
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2019 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 445 times Debate No: 120483
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

Pro

Australia should allow the right for the public to openly carry some form of self defence weapon. Lethal or non lethal. This mainly includes small knives, Pepper spray, And handheld tasers.

In order to have access to these items, The person must be over the age of 18, Have no previous criminal convictions and must pass a mental health assessment. The moment a person attempts to use one of these items incorrectly, They immediately loose the right to access the weapon.
JJ2_pro

Con

We are doing great right now. I feel safe walking the streets of Australia and letting people carry weapons, Even if "only for self-defence", Would make me feel less safe. Even with all these checks and measures, It is safer for no one to carry a weapon then for people to carry a weapon for self-defence. Let me pose you a question. We have a civilian carrying a weapon for self-defence. They go to a pub or bar. They become intoxicated and use the weapon to injure another person. This could not be stopped.

As mentioned early, Australia is going well, And there is no need to carry weapons on our streets.
Debate Round No. 1

Pro

It may seem like Australia is doing well now. However, According to statistics, Crime rate is currently increasing. In a few more years, Crime will continue to increase unless we do something about it. There have been multiple times when a member of the public would have been better off using one of these tools for self defence. As for the criminals, There is not much stopping them from using a weapon right now. It is not hard to conseal a knife of any type. This law would, At least, Allow some form of protection for those who need it most.

Gang related activity such as violent attacks are becoming a lot more common. These attacks will decrease once the public has the ability to fight back. Take a look at America. They have the right to self defence and have no problem with shooting an attacker. Compare that to counties like Europe who have a much higher percentage of what is called "hot burglaries. " Hot burglaries is a home invasion that takes place when the owner is home. The reason for this is because America allows the home owner to defend themselves.

Someone going into a pub or bar when they are armed is no different to now. There is nothing stopping someone walking into the pub with a knife in their pocket. However, If a fight were to break out in a pub, The people inside would have an effective method of preventing it from escalating and may even prevent further injury and/or property damage.

I am not saying people should be allowed to open carry firearms. All I am saying is, At the very least, Allow them to have some form of protection. Right now, They have nothing.
JJ2_pro

Con

Instead of weaponizing our public, Why don't we deter criminals before they strike. We can put funding into schools, Better train our police and re-design New start. What do you want? Members of our public walking around with weapons to harm criminals, Or for crime to be on the decrease without the need of weapons. As for so called "hot burglaries"? If you are inside your own home you have access to knives and the likes. The current law concerning knives says that you can not carry a knife outside of your own premises. With the pub scenario, Currently the person carrying the knife would be arrested. If these laws continued, It would not be clear who was at fault. One could say they were carrying the knife for self defence and only used it when necessary. But there would be little proof, Making these proceedings difficult.

Lets deter these criminals, Not harm them.
Debate Round No. 2

Pro

How would you recommend deterring criminals. Police have been trying to work that out for a long time, Yet their efforts seem to be failing. The average police response time is 12 minutes. That is a very long time in a life or death situation. Allowing people to access these weapons so they can deal with the problem instantly.

Do you believe that police officers should carry their taser when off duty? If you do, Then I would expect that you would allow other people to carry a taser. We can reach middle ground and agree that the people who wish to carry these weapons should complete a training session such as a certification. We will not be simply handing them out to whoever wants one.

Imagine if someone had a taser during that Melbourne knife attack last year. That would have saved at the very least one life. And if this is what we have to do to save a life, So be it.
JJ2_pro

Con

We could deter criminals by improving Newstart, Giving more money to rehabilitation centres and the likes and, As I stated before, Improve education. These simple steps would not only lower crime but also aid the general public.

Our public does NOT need to be weaponized when we can pacify potential criminals.

These principals can be applied to the knife attack.


Let us stop these attacks before they happen.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by JJ2_pro 3 years ago
JJ2_pro
Same here.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
I apologise if my statements are delayed. I will be very busy this weekend.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
That is incorrect. After the gun ban, Australia did not see any reduction in suicide at all. And mass shootings are still happening. One of which took place in Spetember last year. That shooting killed 5 people.

However, The debate topic will not be changing any gun laws at all. The debate is about legalising a person"s right to access close range weapons, Such as a taser, For the purpose of self defence only.
Posted by unicorngod 3 years ago
unicorngod
you realize that because of their gun laws they have incredibly low suicide by gun rates and they haven't had a mass shooting since they changed their gun laws?
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
@WrickItRalph

Ditto
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
I concur
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
AnonymousJJ2_proTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides presented a sound case in their own rights. Pro believing that the right to carry a weapon in self defense will deter crime whereas Con believes we should deter criminals before they even start. What I felt gave Pro a slight edge was the fact that he mentioned that the crime rate was increasing regardless of the current status quo laws. (Although I would have liked to seen a source showing this increase. But since Con didn't contest this or show that this was unrelated to the current law on not carrying self defense weapons it still stands as per debating criteria) and therefore I find Pro's solution to be a much more short term solution. Whereas Con's solutions about education and training seems rather far-fetched in comparison and would take longer to show results. Therefore my vote falls to Pro.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.