The fight-or-flight response is an emotional reaction that occurs in response to a perceived harmful event, attack, or threat to survival: the fight-or-flight response (also called hyperarousal) 1932, Harvard Medical School. It is reasonable to say that an attack that defeats the survival of many such as a mass murder or act of terrorism will cause an emotional state of hyperarousal in many people. This because they are the third person witnesses through the medium of audio and high definition visual news reporting.

A flight response is to look for a solution that deprives a future attacker of having the capacity to act offensively. Conversely, a fight response is to look for a solution that enables a future protector a capacity to act defensively.

The paradox is that the “offensive” and “defensive” rationales are mutually exclusive opinions. However, neither can be said to be the prevailing wisdom in every situation.

The core premise of the Bill is that the probability of each representing a possible solution is the sum of their possibilities.

Who’s solutions, those divided, not one-sided.


Caution, bible references may disturb some atheists.

The Prince of Peace Jesus Christ only said two things about the sword.

Firstly, “Live by the sword die by the sword”
We each have interpretation; however, the following explanation some share and others may not. If one uses the sword as an instrument of power to solve problems, then the chances are their demise will come earlier than expected by another who lives by the sword. What comes around goes around.
It is this aspect that people find most disturbing because we live in a world dominated by the modern version of the sword, the firearm.

The 2nd thing Jesus Christ said was a strange thing to say, “‘But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Some Christians will argue it was metaphorical; however, others believe it was literal. We each have interpretation; the following explanation which some share and others may not. One of the obligations of a Christian is not to place temptation in temptation’s doorway. A light-hearted example would be not to put cakes and other sugary foods down on a table in front of your friend who you know has diabetes but can’t resist them — being considerate of their health requirements that lessen their life is an act of love. Now that is a friend, but what if it is your potential enemy?

The same thing applies because you are obliged to love your enemy. Agape, not the romantic Hollywood no-sense. This obligation doesn’t mean you allow them to take your life. What it means is that it would help if you considered the weakness of your potential enemy because sometimes violent acts are the result of a lack of reason, not morals. Different people and groups of people have different morals. So why did Jesus instruct Luke to sell his cloak and buy a sword?

Ask yourself this, what is the weakness of a bandit, in modern words, a criminal? The answer, an easy target. The reason at least two of the apostles carried swords when travelling was for security, to deter those that may have otherwise attacked the group. It should be noted that all major religions including Islam, Judaism, Buddhism etc have an approximation of the above. It should also be noted that Jesus Christ by another name is recognised by Islam as a prophet (within the Koran) and the issue of terrorism is of mutual concern to all.

Terrorism has no religion but the religion of violence itself.


We may have differences of opinion but we all have the same right to voice those opinions, that is called having the Human Right of Freedom of Speech. Sometimes those that have power will silence those with an opinion different to their own using the justification statement, “your wrong, I’m right” .

Few things will have a greater impact on your professional relationships than learning how and when to validate. Yet no two people—and no two situations—are exactly alike, making it a difficult skill to learn. Validating doesn’t mean you agree, however it does result in finding the middle ground if the conservation continues.


Human Rights is about the promotion of peace and justice and harmony in society. You have a stance on guns. Weapons. The antithesis of peace. We have gun control in Australia. It’s not a human rights issue but I’m glad we have strong gun laws. Try thinking of the rights of the child, the rights of women, the rights of workers, the rights of Indigenous, the rights of LGBTIQ, the rights of the elderly, the rights of refugees and anyone else who has been persecuted, exploited or vulnerable.That’s what a Charter of Human is for. To protect those who are least protected by those who are most privileged. It’s not about more people having more guns. Human rights are inherent. Gun ownership is not.

POL-CPB response:

Human Rights is about the promotion of peace and justice and harmony in society. I agree. You can have all that without disarming a farmer who has protected his family with a rifle he is licensed to have. Had he not arrested the armed intruder and he ran away and hide in the bushes how is peace achieved when the knifeman returns having watched the police disarm the farmer of the visual deterrent that kept him from entering the family home? That is called Diminished Security because the Act of Self-Defence only happens if they are not deterred. The precedent set by the Police undermines all other Human Rights, because if the State can arbitrary dismiss one right they can arbitrarily dismiss all rights.Security of Person means just that.

See also what is security of person, and what is self-defence >>


Statement first paragraph of https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cp/australia

In recent years, several democracies have dramatically reduced the availability of firearms to private individuals. I emphasize the word democracies because, contrary to Internet chatter, the countries in which voters have supported gun amnesties and buybacks are not dictatorships.

Australia no longer has a firearm manufacturing industry. Gun dealers source their stock from overseas – mainly from the United States. 

POL-CPB Response:

The above is a generalisation. A communist moved to Australia was asked, “What do you think of democracy?” His reply, “Democracy for who?”

The Museum of Australian Democracy and the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis at the University of Canberra have released findings from their joint research, Trust and Democracy in Australia, which shows a worrying cultural shift has occurred in Australia. In 2007, 86% of voters were satisfied with Australia’s democracy, but that figure dropped to 72% by 2010 (where it plateaued for three years) and then went into free-fall from 2013, plummeting from 72% to 41% between 2013 and 2018. It means voter satisfaction with Australian democracy, as it is being practised, has more than halved in 10 years. The Museum of Australian Democracy says if nothing is done and current trends continue, fewer than 10% of Australians will trust their politicians and political institutions by 2025 – resulting in ineffective and illegitimate government, and declining social and economic wellbeing.

Source: The Guardian, Australians no longer trust their democracy, survey finds >>

What was the response of the Australian people to the Howard decision?

The Howard Government after 1996 almost lost an election to the outsider party One Nation following the 1996 buyback; why? Perhaps because there was no public consultation or referendum seeking voluntary compliance. Anytime it is “compulsory” remember the words of the communist. See also the wisdom of Rollo May >>


Numerous social science studies have found that early intervention is the key to reducing violence in society. Behavioural outcomes frequently targeted by early intervention include reducing antisocial behaviour and crime, addressing violence and aggression at school, and encouraging affiliation with responsible peers.

If a young person is curious about firearms remember what killed the cat?

One area in which violence in society is reduced is through sport, and the sporting shooters is an excellent example of affiliation with responsible peers and adult coaching.

The sport of shooting requires control over the emotion of anxiety resulting in less nervousness and achieved by the discipline of being on target and working in fellowship with other people towards achieving specific sport-related goals. Fellowship and sport are essential for maintaining and improving an individual’s wellness. The above supports the hypothesis that the sport of shooting has reduced incidents of firearm-related self-harm and harm to others. A problem discussed is a problem halved and where best to discuss it, at a place where people feel safe in sharing their views and concerns.



A member who is an advocate against the Bill posted this video. Creative sarcasm, worth a view.

Titled, Mrs. Betty Bowers, America’s Best Christian. There were no verbal references to christianity apart from holding what may be presumed to be a bible. Perhaps this actress has a style and there are other productions by the same name should you be interest in this style of info-entertainment.

POL-CPA response to the video:

If the US wishes to remove the 2nd Amendment then they need to lead by example and disarm the US Homeland Security Domestic Army. Review this story from Forbes for the context and the why?

It would be good to see two different people that hold two different views rather than the one person attempting to pretend to be a person with another viewpoint. Perhaps someone has a suggestion to do something like the above with an Australian relevance.