Chris, you may be confusing the objective with strategy. I hope so, because otherwise your denials are hollow.

My objective is for any adult who wants a CCW permit to have a right provided they haven’t forfeited it due to criminal activity or mental illness. I don’t mind a basic training course as a prerequisite, but not proving a need.

As a strategy, I’m happy to argue for home self-defence as a first step. Once that’s achieved, I would move on to self-defence outside the home.

That’s a lot different from saying CCW “hopefully” will remain irrelevant, as you did in #19. My view is that CCW will “hopefully” become relevant to just about everyone. I don’t mind taking one step at a time as long as they are leading to the right place.

I don’t try to decide for everyone, but I think I have a fair grasp of what SHOULD be politically possible even if it isn’t obvious how to get the law changed yet. We should not adopt everything-or-nothing as our approach, because it guarantees we get nothing.

Your quislings-dont-want-CCW attitude is a bit like what the Greens and Leftists do: moral high ground based on ideological purity. Being perfectly right, and kicked out, becomes under that stance better than being almost completely right and part of an effective team. (Whatever happened to the Judaean People’s Front? Oh HE’s over there. SPLITTER!)

I don’t oppose success by stealth but if by irrelevant you mean illegal, we could not disagree more Chris. Neither compromise nor appeasement are appropriate on this issue.

CCW is irrelevant to most Australians because most of us live at astonishingly low risk of violence.

Australia’s violent crime rate is double that of America’s. I don’t have figures for Israel but I understand it’s also lower. Americans and Israelis don’t think CCW is irrelevant.

You might not want to carry Chris, but it’s not your right to decide on behalf of everyone else.

CCW is irrelevant to most Australians because most of us live at astonishingly low risk of violence. A few should be able to have arms in public – for instance, publicans, jewellers, gun dealers, women (and men) who are escaping violent partners – but there is no need to make it a big issue, it should just quietly be arranged.

Thats what I mean – it should stay irrelevant to most of us.

In addition, our ideological opponents get away with a lot of bullshit because they promote the false idea that we want every idiot on the street to have a gun without restriction. We end up having to argue on ground where no-one needs to win anyway. I want air pistols on A class, Ruger 10/22 on B and sensible rules for handgun target shooters. These are things we have no chance of getting because the debate is played out on the wrong ground. It does us no good when f***wits, give a false idea that plays into the hands of the opposition.

Bullshit Chris. Guns for self defence were quite common in Britain in the latter part of the 19th century and early 20th century. And stop being such a Quisling. The argument is unwinnable on sport and hunting grounds.

Gun laws biggest effect is harassing decent people, not impeding criminals. We could have the same crime control for half the restrictions. Give back our rabbit and duck rifles!