Right: in the United States, non-lethal weapons are available legally and are even advertised in catalogues
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of making pepper spray and tasers legally available within the broader community
1. Fear of attack is restricting citizens' legitimate movements
Those who support citizens' right to non-lethal weapons for self-defence argue that without such weapons women, in particular, are being intimidated into avoiding public spaces, especially at night.
A 2016 survey of 600 girls and women aged between 15 and19 from across Australia found that thirty per cent believed that 'girls should not be out in public spaces after dark'. Another 23 per cent said that girls should not travel alone on public transport.
The survey asked these girls and women what would make them feel safer. One of their responses was that girls should have better access to information and training to protect themselves from violence.
Following the death of Eurydice Dixon in June, 2018, Melbourne's Lord Mayor, Sally Capp, was asked if she felt safe in the city at night. She replied, 'No (I don't). I think the practical outcome of that is no. And it's going to be difficult to achieve that, really.
Hoping that people use those (safe areas to walk, cycle and drive) is important, but at the end of the day we should all be able to move around our city safely.'
A similar admission was made by Victoria's police minister, Lisa Neville. Ms Neville stated, 'As a woman I want to be able to be safe in my community. Unfortunately that's not the case and we've got a lot of work to do.'
When Jeff Bourman, of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party, posted on Facebook that he would be putting a motion before the Victorian Legislative Council calling for the government to ensure that 'all practical and reasonable methods of self-defence are available to those who want them,' he cited the claims made by Capp and Neville that they felt unsafe. He indicated that he would draw the House's attention to the fact that 'the Minister for Police, the Hon. Lisa Neville MP, and the Lord Mayor of Melbourne, Ms Sally Capp, are afraid to walk the street alone at night.'
Bourman's clear implication was that carrying some self-defence device was necessary for these and other women to feel able to move freely about the city at night.
2. Smaller and physically weaker people are vulnerable to attack from stronger assailants
Those who argue that Australian citizens should be able to carry non-lethal weapons with which to defend themselves highlight the vulnerability to attack of women, the small, the frail and the elderly.
Senator Anning stated, in his motion calling for the federal government to ease import restrictions on these weapons, 'The ability of individuals to defend themselves varies with the strength, age, fitness and skill of the individual, with women and the elderly generally more vulnerable.' The senator concluded, 'Vulnerable people need some form of defence against violent individuals of superior strength.'
Arguing for access to self-defence weapons, an opinion piece published on Firearm Owners United's Internet site on June 17, 2018, stated, 'The right to self-defence means absolutely nothing in practical terms to the weaker, infirm, elderly, disabled, women and the rest when they can't realistically even the score in some way.'
The same argument was put by Liberal Democrats senator, David Leyonhjelm, in September, 2014, when calling for wider community access to weapons of self-defence. The senator stated that without such weapons 'self-defence is not a realistic option for most people, and especially not for the majority of women, elderly and disabled. We have become a nation of defenceless victims... It is...the height of hypocrisy for anti-violence groups to fail to promote the availability of practical ways in which potential victims can protect themselves against predators. Restrictions on non-lethal means of self-defence should be removed, while methods with limited potential to cause harm should be made available but restricted to adults.'
3. The police cannot be relied upon to prevent all assaults
Proponents of citizens' right to carry non-lethal self-defence weapons argue that the police do not and cannot be expected to provide protection for all who are attacked.
Senator Fraser Anning's motion put to the federal Parliament to ease restrictions on the importation of tasers, pepper spray and mace included the justification 'police cannot be everywhere at all times, so in order to ensure citizens are protected from harm, all citizens must have the absolute right to self-defence.'
The same point was made by Senator David Leyonhjelm in an opinion piece published in September, 2014, in which the senator stated, 'In particular, women and the elderly do not believe that relying on the police to arrive in time will keep them safe. If asked, most would unequivocally demand the right to practical self-defence, at least with non-lethal means.'
In June, 2017, Senator Leyonhjelm made a similar observation which was published in The Australian. Calling on Australian governments to allow their citizens to carry self-defence devices, Senator Leyonhjelm warned, 'The police can't be everywhere. They acknowledge that. The sensible ones, at least, say it takes us five, 10, 15 minutes even in the city to be there. By that stage you can have a lot of victims.'
Firearm Owners United regularly note that the police very rarely, if ever, arrive in time to prevent an assault. In an opinion piece titled 'Forget 'More Police', we want self-defence', published on the group's Internet site on January 6, 2018, it stated, 'Face it, police are always reactive and they're not going to be there in time. That's not a slight at them, that's just the laws of physics, i.e. time and space.'
In an anonymous report published in The Guardian on January 16, 2016, a former British police controller, charged with answering 999 calls, explained some of the factors that can delay police response. He explained, 'I'm writing this because I want you to understand that if we don't get to you straight away, it's not because we can't be bothered or we think you're unimportant. There's a queue, and the current risk to your life judges your place in that queue.'
The former controller explained a particular response, 'You were burgled last month, and now there's a suspicious man hanging around in the alleyway opposite and you want us to check him out. Perfectly reasonable, but if he's not breaking someone's head open, or climbing through a window, I can't always send someone straight away.'
4. Non-lethal self-defence devices are legal in many other countries
Those who support the legalisation of non-lethal self-defence devices in Australia note that pepper spray is legal in many other countries and jurisdictions.
Tasers are generally limited to police use around the world, other than in the United States where they can be legally carried without a permit in most states.
Mace has largely been supplanted world-wide by pepper spray for both police and civilian use as pepper spray is generally regarded as more incapacitating and less toxic. Pepper spray is legally accessible by citizens in many jurisdictions. It is legal in India and its possession and use does not require a licence. It is sold through government-approved companies after performing a background verification. In the Philippines its use for self-defence is legal and it is readily available for sale in stores. The same is the case in Mongolia, Thailand, Taiwan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and Israel. In Austria pepper spray may be owned and carried by adults without registration or permission and its use for self-defence is allowed. Austrian police actually encourage vulnerable groups like pensioners and women to carry pepper spray. A similar situation pertains in the Czech Republic, where police again encourage vulnerable groups to carry pepper spray. In Germany, pepper sprays labelled 'for the purpose of defence against animals' may be owned and carried by anyone, including minors. Such sprays are not legally classified as weapons. In Latvia pepper spray is classified as a self-defence device and can be bought and carried by anyone over 16 years of age. Pepper spray is legal in Italy for those over 16, though there are limitations on strength and regulations governing storage. In Russia pepper spray is classified as a self-defence weapon and can be carried by anyone over 18. The same is the case in Spain. In the United States, pepper spray can be legally purchased and carried in all fifty states, though regulations regarding age of purchases and the strength of the product vary from state to state.
In Australia, those who favour the legalisation of pepper spray point to Western Australia where pepper spray is considered a controlled weapon, not a prohibited one, and can be carried if a person has 'reasonable grounds' to believe they may need to use it in 'lawful defence.'
This law has been quite liberally interpreted by the Western Australian Supreme Court. A 2003 Supreme Court decision ruled a motel proprietor was able to carry pepper spray to break up fights between hotel occupants in self-defence.
During the hearing, Justice Christine Wheeler stated, 'It was plainly intended that women carrying sprays when they go out in the evening, or older and frailer members of the community carrying them in situations where they felt themselves to be in danger, would not be committing an offence under the legislation.'
Justice Wheeler further explained, 'It is not necessary that there be an imminent threat, before such a spray can be possessed or carried. It is enough that a person has reasonable grounds to believe that circumstances in which it may be necessary to use the spray for that purpose may arise.'
5. Non-lethal devices, especially pepper spray, are an effective means of self-defence
Supporters of non-lethal self-defence devices being made available in Australia note their effectiveness. The efficacy of pepper spray is particularly stressed as it is argued it is very rarely fatal, requires minimal training to use and is very debilitating when used against potential assailants. It is generally judged more effective than Mace. Tasers require more training for civilian use than either spray. On a world-wide basis, tasers or stun guns have been far less often approved for non-police use.
In the 1970s women were encouraged to use hair spray as a potential deterrent against assault. Then additional chemical self-protection products came onto the market, including Mace (comprised of the constituents of 'tear gas'), Witness Chemical Identifier, and later pepper spray. Pepper spray is scientifically known as oleoresin capsicum (OC). The active ingredient in pepper spray is capsaicin, which is a chemical derived from the fruit of plants in the genus Capsicum, including chillies. Extraction of oleoresin capsicum (OC) from peppers requires capsicum to be finely ground, from which capsaicin is then extracted using an organic solvent such as ethanol.
It was not until the 1990s that law enforcement began to replace their Mace canisters with pepper spray, which has correspondingly became popular for personal safety since the early and mid 1990s.
Mace is generally judged less effective than pepper spray. It relies on pain in order to be effective and takes an average of 5 to 30 seconds to have an effect. It is also claimed to be ineffective on those who have a high pain tolerance, such as those who are drug-affected or mentally disturbed. Pepper spray's effects are immediate. Pepper spray is regarded as a highly effective device to incapacitate a potential assailant and is generally recommended over Mace. Women's Self-Defence Boston, a commercial women's self-defence organisation, says of the substance, 'Pepper spray (OC) is an inflammatory agent i.e. it inflames tissues. It causes the eyes to shut immediately...and causes the tissue of the nose and throat to swell, affecting breathing... When sprayed a person will instantaneously be blinded, their breathing will be affected to the point where they feel the equivalent of an asthma attack. At the same time their face (or whatever skin comes in to contact with the spray) will burn.'
Women's Self-Defence Boston explains those circumstances where pepper spray is likely to be a useful self-defence tool. They state, 'The situations where pepper spray is an effective tool are largely those when you are threatened by a stranger e.g. dealing with aggressive/dangerous individuals in parking lots, on the street, when you are in your car, when you are answering your door etc.'