• expired

Weatherby Vanguard S2 Rifle + Nikko Mountmaster 3-9x40 Scope $599 from Hall's Firearms


According to their facebook page:

Weatherby Vanguard S2 (blued synthetic) PLUS Nikko Mountmaster 3-9x40 scope
All calibres

Looks like a great price compared to a few other retailers in Australia:
$735 rifle only
$1335 rifle only
$995 rifle only

Hall's have locations in Townsville and Rockhampton.

Link to product page.

Related Stores


closed Comments

  • +24 votes

    lol @ people reporting this for illegal/inappropriate. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it any less of a deal.


    Now we just need some old cars & road signs to test them on.
    (& some sun on my neck)

    It's probably not going to stop a croc, but it'll help make some roo into a tasty stew

    • +1 vote

      Brudda you gonna eat that croc?

      A 30 06 will stop most things if you hit them in a sensitive area. It certainly is gonna make a mess of any vital body parts…

  • +6 votes

    Saw Vangaurd. Thought it was for Destiny

  • +2 votes

    Did a bit of searching about the product then realised that my searches might be intercepted by the authorities…

    • +13 votes

      Just take a shot.

      • +11 votes

        I swear I saw these in a few gun magazines I was rifling through at the hospital

        • +20 votes

          I've got my sights on this deal. I'm just hesitating on pulling the trigger. I'll have to take stock of my situation. But if I do, that's just more ammo for my wife's accusations that I spend too much on OzBargain!

        • +14 votes


          Whatever the case, don't be too hasty and jump the gun. Make sure you scope out the deal before deciding to bite the bullet, else you might be in for a round of disappointment =p

        • +11 votes


          I do bow to your wisdom - after all, it's clear that you're of a much higher calibre than I. In fact, your comments have certainly muzzled me. I'm gonna have to get a grip of myself though, because, if I do buy one, I'm looking down the barrel of a grilling from my wife.

        • +4 votes

          Love how this escalated from "just take a shot". :-D
          (sorry no gun puns)

        • +3 votes


        • +1 vote

          I don't get it. Can you bold the puns please?



          Which ones? Here's the list from the conversation above:

          shot, magazines, rifling, sights, trigger, stock, ammo, scope, bullet, round, calibre, muzzled, grip, barrel

        • +1 vote

          thank you so much

    • +20 votes

      Your everything is intercepted by authorities, whether it's your interest in Guns or your interest in Gundam Suit Anime Hentai. The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment Bill of 2015 (a.k.a. retroactive admission of and immunity against warrantless surviellance since 9/11) is now Gub'mint approved.

      • +1 vote

        Not if you use done of the vpn deals on ozbargainšŸ˜

        • +4 votes

          Your VPN will become a no-no if Brandis has his way

        • +1 vote

          @Wally: Luckily he almost certainly won't due to technical issues.

          The pillock is appears to have very little technical understanding of much at all and takes most of his advice from the intelligence agencies.

          It just irritates me because now i have an additional cost of a VPN if I wish to use the internet and not have my human rights violated at the same time. Also degrades Australia's already terrible internet speeds further.

          We actually voted these buffoons in to spy on us.

        • +2 votes

          You are a fool if you think a VPN protects you.

          The guy running The Silk Road went down that way and I am betting he is a lot smarter than you are…

        • +1 vote


          he made a mistake an posted from a linked/known account on the open web. look it up.



          The guy running The Silk Road went down that way and I am betting he is a lot smarter than you areā€¦

          1. He was breaking criminal laws in multiple jurisdictions including narcotics trafficking and conspiracy to commit murder for goodness sake. There's no way in hell you can equate that to copyright infringement or looking at content the Gub'mint deems subversive. Law enforcement is not going to expend that amount of resources and effort to pursue every teen and his dog downloading Game of Thrones.

          2. Signals capture is one thing. Signals processing and analysis is entirely another. Having the metadata is the easy part. Writing data-mining software like Carnivore to find useful patterns and triangulate a user's disparate online identities is incredibly difficult to say the least.

          3. A VPN is another headache to get past. They go for the low-hanging fruit, i.e. mum & pop downloaders.


          @richox: He made several mistakes, but his location was given up by his VPN provider who gave the authorities his actual IP address, and hence his location.

          Smart guy but attracted a lot of heat.


          The point is, if the authorities want your details, the fact you used a VPN isn't going to stop them getting them.

          The precedents have been set so future requests to for such info are going to be easier to get fulfilled.

          Sure I agree the cops aren't going to chase your VPN down for GOT, but Hollywood might…

          The moral to the story is - A VPN does not protect you as much as many morons might think it does…

        • +1 vote

          @GreatWhiteHunter: IIRC, his VPN service provider did sing like a canary but that's not what actually led to a conviction.

          They caught him using an email address linked to his real identity on a forum (as always, the security is only as good as the dimwit using it). They also used some JavaScript exploits in the Tor browser to inject client-side code that tracked his activities. One of his founding friends of the Silk Road testified against him in court, the FBI penetrated one of the Silk Road's main servers, his seized laptop contained literally a blue-print of how he created and ran the site along with things like a daily logbook and a several-year long chat history (again, idiot); in short it was a multi-pronged, massive combined Federal effort to nail that guy.

          Not a case of, "Hey Tor, give us your logs for Ross Ulbricht, please. Thanks. Ross, you're under arrest" as you seem to think it was.

          The precedents have been set so future requests to for such info are going to be easier to get fulfilled.

          For US VPNs, maybe. Plenty of other jurisdictions to choose from like Malta, Romania or the US Virgin Islands. Some VPN providers already have warrant canaries in place, like Swedish-based VikingVPN.

          A VPN does not protect you as much as many morons might think it doesā€¦

          If it's configured properly, it is orders of magnitude more secure than ordinary web traffic. While their collusion with government, legislative and law enforcement agencies is a possibility; if it ever came to light that a VPN provider was knowingly deceiving their customer base by keeping full logging of all subscriber traffic, they could easily be successfully sued for breaches of contract, false advertising and not delivering agreed upon service.

          A VPN provider with their back up against the wall, facing punitive legislative action for failure to cooperate with the Feds is more than likely going to simply go under and go under very publicly, so their customer base would have ample notice to take the necessary measures to avoid getting caught up in the take-down. Keeping the lid on an active Federal lawsuit against your business while trying to conduct operations as normal would be next to impossible.



          You should read the book No place to hide by Glenn Oswald, if you think they don't have the capacity to process the meta data.

          This has all the snowden revelations.


          Maybe we just invent a new language that actually makes no sense to anyone so that they spend their time trying to figure out the unfigurable.

        • -1 vote


          what's more important? The safety of the public or the risk that the government may use anything negative against you when you break the law?
          How many guys have been put away planning attacks in Australia likely using these laws in the last 2 years? Sometimes sacrifices have to made under certain circumstances.
          Understand your concern though, hope you understand mine.

        • +4 votes

          @murphy84: Gee, why does that sound so monumentally stupid? Let me think… Benjamin Franklin, something, something, those who trade liberty for security, something, something, deserve neither, something.

          There has been legislation in place since the 1970s that allows for law enforcement to intercept the telecommunications of suspected criminals. The process is very straightforward, you show proof of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and obtain a court-ordered warrant to spy on a suspected criminal and determine from signals intercepts whether or not they are actual criminals. It's worked for decades.

          Carte blanche surveillance of every man and his dog, in the off-chance that they may one day commit a crime that'll somehow be pre-emptively broadcast on the Internet (because 9/11, 7/7 and the Boston Marathon Bombings were all planned on Google Docs don't you know?), is patently ludicrous and counter-productive to crime-fighting, and more to the point, circumvents the checks and balances the legal system had in place to prevent gross abuses of power (which have already happened).

          Broad and massive anti-"criminal" legislation that has the potential to target millions of ordinary citizens historically has never worked, whether it's anti-consorting laws against organised crime, Prohibition in the US, the "War on Drugs" or the escalation in airport screening and security measures that has failed many a time in foiling terror acts since 9/11.

          How many guys have been put away planning attacks in Australia likely using these laws in the last 2 years?

          Even if any "plots" were foiled on the basis of mandatory metadata stores, which I sincerely doubt, we won't know about them. So the merits of such programs are never gauged.

          Hence the authorities create a self-fulfilling prophecy of circular logic:

          We need to keep tabs on everyone in case someone breaks the law > We can't tell you whose data we keep or why > We can't tell you how we use this data > The particulars of the acquisition, storage and analysis of the data is of national importance and cannot be disclosed > Even successfully prosecuted cases involving metadata as evidence cannot reveal the use of metadata because that could compromise the effectiveness of metadata retention > We need your metadata > Don't ask why.

          Sometimes sacrifices have to made under certain circumstances.

          This isn't a sacrifice.

          This is THE ultimate sacrifice of our barely-intact civil liberties. Maybe you've been in a shed for the past decade.

          hope you understand mine.

          Dumbest thing I've read for a very long time on OB.


          You should read the book No place to hide by Glenn Oswald, if you think they don't have the capacity to process the meta data.

          On demand in targeted efforts? Yes. Automated, effective processing of the several year-long metadata backlogs of millions of individuals, including deep-packet inspection logs?

          No. Technically, logistically and financially: a resounding No.

          This has all the snowden revelations.

          He didn't reveal anything those with a clue didn't already know. Neither did Assange. Neither did Wikileaks. Neither did any of these "Classified" Whistleblowers steeped in intelligence agency involvement who are spinning for the other side.

          You should read the definition of the Nixon-era term: a "limited hangout".


          Tor is not useable for anything approaching "normal" internet usage due to it's speed. The only option if you want that is a VPN.

      • +1 vote

        Pretty sure everything has been stored in servers in Adelaide for quite some time (then shipped to USA)

  • +2 votes

    Great deal. Great price.

    My preference would be the VGT3006 30-06 model. Magazine capacity of 5 rounds, they should do a deal on an extended mag…

    • +1 vote

      Cleavers recently had a deal which I think is still going, $110 for dbm kits for Howa/Vanguard rifles. I think it was short action only though, can't remember

  • +4 votes

    Good price on the Vanguard. Bin the Nikko scope though. A little bit extra will get you a better Leupold. The difference is worth it. (Or call your bank manager and get a Swarovski!)




    silly question, but what do ppl actually do with these?? apart from shooting rabbits or bottles…

    • +8 votes

      Stroke them with a glass-eyed smile!

    • +1 vote

      Target shooting or hunting (depending on the caliber you select it would be fine for most animals you want to hunt in Australia, except maybe some of the really big stuff like buffalo in NT)

    • +1 vote

      Stockpile for the zombie apocalypse / financial and societal meltdown / the happening.

    • +3 votes

      You could hunt deer, rabbits, foxes, goats, wild dogs. You could get into a bit of target shooting at a social level (You wouldn't win any great competitions with that rifle/scope combo)

    • +7 votes

      There are plenty of feral animals in Australia
      Rabbits as you mentioned, as well as Deer, Foxes, Camels, Wild Cats, Wild Dogs, Goat, Horses, Pigs and Buffalo.

      I prefer not to shoot Australian natives, but in some areas Kangaroos are a massive problem as well.

      To give you an example, a guy I know has an apartment in Brisbane but lives out near Blackall raising sheep. Lately they have been getting knocked off by a wild dog, so a few guys offered to come and and try and shoot it. That weekend they managed to shoot something like 52 wild dogs on the property.
      Yes you could argue that sheep aren't native and have no more rights than dogs to be there, but this is the sort of thing that pushes up the price of farming and food in general.

      Feral animals compete with natives and our farming stock for resources.


        thanks for the detailed explanation @xordis! :)
        but would you actually need a license to shoot those "feral animals"?


          To own/use a gun you would need a license. You could potentially go bow hunting for feral animals on private property (with the owners permission) without a license, but to use firearms you need a license. You also can't just shoot anywhere - in NSW you can hunt on private property with just a firearms license, but to hunt on public land (state forests that have been declared for hunting) you also need a R license from DPI (and you have to get permission each day you wish to hunt in a state forest).


          WazzaP pretty much covered it all.

          No you don't need a license to shoot feral animals.
          In fact, a lot of local council will pay you a bounty for bringing in scalps.
          I know places like Warwick, Toowoomba and Esk shire councils pay something like $50-$150 per wild dog you bring in.

          Here is a detailed list of feral animals in Queensland.

          For those thinking this is inhumane, I disagree.
          Firstly they are pests competing with native animals for feed and also sometimes as a predator (cats, dogs, foxes etc kill native mammals, lizards and birds)


    What calibre cartridge does it shoot? 22 or 308?
    I don't own a farm so need a gun license to own one. Gun ownership is so expensive in Australia, just not worth it :(
    Like to own a Glock 19 handgun for range shooting hobby. Whereas it is like US$500-$600 in US, how much is it here? $2,000?

    • +2 votes

      It fires many different calibres. The full list is in the product page link. All are on sale it seems.

      Don't forget the ridiculous cost of ammo and accessories here. I used to shoot rapid fire pistol competitions. After 1 round you could be down $50 in ammo alone if you shot centrefire. Waaaaay too expensive for me to justify as a hobby.

    • +1 vote

      What is the process of getting a license? I haven't done any research on that…

      • +30 votes

        Depends on the state and class of firearm. I only know NSW laws, which may be outdated since I haven't had a license for about 10yrs
        Most common classes are A and B
        A is rimfire rifle
        B is centrefire rifle

        There is also H, which is handgun. C (rimfire self loading) and D (centrefire self loading) is damn near impossible to get unless you are a super professional hunter shooting out of helicopters and the space shuttle and stuff.

        To get a A/B license it's pretty easy. You need a genuine reason to own a firearm (SSAA membership qualifies, as does a letter from someone who owns farmland saying you have permission for pest control on their farm or wherever). Then you need to go do a firearms safety and handling course at your local club or gun shop, which is basically 1 evening. Then you need to send all the paperwork in and wait. Oh and you need a police background check.

        H is harder to get. I havent had a H license for years, but back then it was something like 6? handgun competition shoots per year (I think this has since increased) and you had to have membership of a handgun club. You could only apply for a H license after being a member of that club for at least 6 months and you had to pass a test.

        Then you have purchasing. You need to have a suitable safe for storage (which the police can inspect at any time for no reason at all without warning), which needs to be certified by the police before you purchase anything. Then you need to apply for a permit to acquire a firearm, and specify what you are looking to buy (eg rimfire rifle) and why (eg rimfire target competition). If you ask to get something and the reason doesn't match up (eg you want a .338 to shoot rabbits), then you can be denied. Then you need to do all the waiting before you can buy the gun.

        If you store the gun improperly, then you go to jail. If you use it improperly, then you go to jail. If you transport it improperly, then you go to jail. If you are a licensed shooter and screw up, you will get punished more severely than career criminals. IIRC it was 7yrs per offense for a licensed shooter, whereas there was a case of a career criminal caught with 10 illegal handguns, charged with 2 cases of assault etc etc and he got 2yrs total.

        Oh and ammo is ridiculously expensive. Prepare to pay 50c to $1 for centrefire. For anything "rare" or "cool", eg .338 lapua or .300winmag or whatever they use in Counterstrike now, prepare to pay upwards of $5 a round. .22 is the cheapest by far (~$5 for 50 rounds) but there's as much recoil as paintball, and hardly any noise.

        So yeah, you gotta do a ton of legal work, then ask for permission, then give up any rights to privacy (although I don't know anyone who has actually had cops randomly inspect their house), then you get the law waved in your face all the time. And then you pay a huge amount for everything. That's why I stopped shooting.

        • +1 vote

          Basically the gun law is to discourage people from owning and using one. Thanks for the good detail explanation there FiftyCal, that pretty much confirm my decision not to get into this hobby at all.

        • +6 votes

          In a nutshell, you are correct.

          For me the main thing was the price. I am passionate about firearms and firearms laws, but I cannot justify the costs at all when there are bills/mortgage/rent/whatever to pay.

          From a cost perspective, for a new shooter it's approximately the following:
          $100 gun club membership
          $100 for firearms license
          $30 for permit to acquire
          $100 for firearms safety course
          $400 for cheap rifle safe
          That's about $730 and you don't even have a gun yet!

          Then say $700 for a CZ452 in .22LR (always start with .22) and thats without any accessories or optics or ammo.

          So that's almost 1.5k and you have the an entry level beginners kit

          For newbies, I would always recommend going with .22LR because it helps you develop technique and it's nice and cheap so you can get a ton of practice in without ragequitting over the price. Also, going too big too fast can easily make you develop flinch, where you anticipate the recoil so your body flinches before the recoil actually happens. It's hard to train flinch out of someone who already has it, and flinch affects shooting performance. Thus, although the rifle in the deal is a great price, it's not suited for newbies. I said to get a CZ452 because they are damn fine rifles and something that you won't get rid of

        • +2 votes

          A couple of minor things in your post that aren't the case any more -
          1 the safe doesn't need to be inspected before purchasing any firearms (mine wasn't inspected for about 6mths after I bought my first gun, and I know a few people who haven't had theirs inspected at all)
          2 Although the cops can ask to inspect the safe at any time, the law specifically states that it is to be inspected at a "mutually agreeable time" - generally accepted rule is you can ask them to come back inside of 48hrs with little issue, but if you had a good enough reason (leaving to go to the airport for a week long holiday) you could ask for longer. The cops who inspected my safe simply left a business card as I wasn't home when they first came, and had no issues working around me timing wise. Also note when they show up they're not searching your house - you simply lead them to your safe, open it, and they verify that you have what you're meant to have. IMO you're not exactly giving up your right to privacy.
          3 you only need to specify the category of gun (a PTA for a center fire will let you buy any center fire cal that's legal in NSW) and they don't ask what the planned use is (just ask that you certify the use is in accordance with your genuine reason for your license) so they'd never know if you planned to shoot rabbits with a .338.

          A/B License also needs a minimum of 4 shoots a year if your genuine reason is hunting/target, and yeah with cat H it's something like 6 shoots a year but increases with each class of handgun you buy (if you just have a rimfire then it's 6, but get a center fire or air pistol and you have to do 4 shoots per class).


          Thanks for the corrections. It's been a while.

          Yeah thats the bitch with Class H. When they brought in the increased number of shoots per class, it basically made it necessary for the more casual members to sell most of their handguns. The club had to basically reschedule every sunday shoot and make sure there was an official competition, just so that everyone could get their competition quota in, because practicing doesn't count toward the quota.


          @FiftyCal: The last time I shot in a range (indoor) was in Hawaii 2 years ago. Shot a .22LR rifle, a 9mm Glock pistol and a .38 special revolver. That .22LR rifle is like shooting a pea shooter, no fun at all. The revolver has quite a decent recoil but not a big deal to handle. The Glock while being lighter but it has less recoil and is the most satisfying to shoot. I didn't try the .44 Magnum revolver because I suspect it would be quite uncomfortable for me to handle. "Do you feel lucky? Punk!"

        • +1 vote

          @edfoo: The system is rigged from the ground-up to discourage you from going through with the entire process.

          In the end, your local cop shop has the ultimate say in any application and can (and have) rejected applications for absolutely no real reason.

          You are at the whims of a class of people who view citizens as guilty until proven innocent and do not believe private firearm ownership is even a privilege for some, let alone a right for all.

          It's a dehumanising process that treats you like a scumbag for wanting to have a gun and makes you feel like a target that has to continually watch over your shoulder and not step out of line.



          What fiftycal said is pretty spot on, but it's probably not as bad as he is making out.

          • Yes it's an expensive hobby/sport. Expect to spend anywhere from $1k-$3k on a decent setup. If you get hooked on target shooting, those guys spend anywhere from $5-6k up to 20-30k on setups.
          • Yes you need to maintain a membership and your license, but it's maybe $100 a year on average ($80 club membership + gun license)
          • Yes you will get randomly inspected. Just make sure you have everything in a safe and you will be fine. (another $300+ for a safe)
          • Yes you have to be careful commuting with a gun. There are rules, like you can't leave it in a car unattended etc.

          I am not sure that penalties for improperly storing or transporting guns will land you in jail, but expect to loose everything and be fined.

          The biggest kicker is if you get reported for any type of assault/domestic violence etc, you will loose your license. And I was told even if you are accused of it they will take your license off you. Pretty stupid rule and I am not sure how true it is, but I was told that at the safety course.



          "A/B License also needs a minimum of 4 shoots a year"

          Not in QLD.

          Great info though =)



          Yep, not the case in Queensland as mentioned.
          The only license you need to do shoots for a H category.
          From memory it's 6 shoots for one hand gun, and 10 if you want to own two.

          From what I can gather is these meets are held in a rather social fashion.
          You just turn up and shoot a few rounds and go home if you wish.
          I never got too far into the handgun info as it doesn't interest me at all.

          (in qld) you can only carry them too and from the range/gun shop.
          You cannot go out and use them on private property.

    • -1 vote

      I'd like to own a Glock for fun and self-defense. For some reason the reason "the police will help you" is offered as a reason to not be allowed to own a firearm. Of course if the police were just there when you needed them then crime wouldn't happen. Realistic right.

      • +3 votes

        By the time you get to the gun and load it, you would be screwed. And then the law will then screw you even further because you showed intent by accessing the gun and loading it. The only real excuse would be "I was cleaning my gun and some ammo was nearby in a locked container and then the guy broke in". Unfortunately the law here says you basically have to run, and only can defend yourself as a last resort. If you defend yourself with whatever is nearby then thats easier to convince the police/jury/whatever.

        I just keep a sword near the bed. Completely legal and looks nice and much easier to explain to the authorities should I need to defend myself.


          sorry - delete

        • +2 votes

          By the time you get to the gun and load it, you would be screwed. And then the law will then screw you even further because you showed intent by accessing the gun and loading it.

          Not always. I always remember this story where the home owner shot an intruder entering his bedroom. He did the right thing. Locked himself in the room. Shouted that he had a gun. However the intruder still kicked the door in and attacked him which is when the home owner shot him in the stomach. The home owner was not charged. The intruder got 4 years in jail.

          Then there was my story.

        • +4 votes

          @Oldbugger: Great. So he had to wait until his life was essentially slipping through his fingers, until he was given the privilege of defending himself. I can only hazard a guess at how that story would have been seen in court if he fired without waiting to endure bodily harm from his legally-protected attackers and had it not been two senior citizens, one of whom was an invalid, being attacked by multiple intruders.

          You do hear those stories once in a while, but for every story like that, there are probably 5 of people doing jail time for clubbing some degenerate scum over the head while they were simply minding their own business, in their own house, where said worthless waste of space should haven't been.

          Our self-defence laws are another case of guilty until proven innocent, or more rightly, until injured/dead. Meanwhile, the PM's bodyguards get concealed carry permits nationwide and our laws are even changed when visiting Heads of State land in Australia so that their foreign security detail can brandish fully-automatics wherever they damn well please.

          Even armoured truck drivers/ATM service management are allowed to use their firearms to prevent the commission of a crime against their cargo (money) but God forbid people want to defend their lives in this country.

          This country is disheartening to be a part of sometimes.

        • +1 vote


          I can only hazard a guess at how that story would have been seen in court if he fired without waiting to endure bodily harm

          I recall this story about the farmer who shot an intruder without a scuffle. I never knew the final outcome but Police suggested the farmer would not be charged.

          I've heard stories of home owners being charged but many either involved drugs or excessive self-defence and stupidity. Like this bloke for example, who lined up the victim's head and shot him in the middle of the forehead from the window of his bedroom.


          Surely this can't be how the law works…



          I've heard stories of home owners being charged but many either involved drugs or excessive self-defence and stupidity. Like this bloke for example, who lined up the victim's head and shot him in the middle of the forehead from the window of his bedroom.

          Yeah and if you read the article, the judge dismissed that sensationalist characterisation of his actions by the ambulance-chasing, prosecution vultures and deemed him to have acted under duress (as anyone would have) and discharged the gun accidentally possibly due to alcohol/marijuana-impairment in addition to noting the accused is not prior offender and has a very low likelihood of gun-related recidivism.

          "Experienced Gunman".
          What a complete, hysterical, Today Tonight-style farce.

          Still good for a laugh though; displays all of the usual tropes of our ass-backwards, unjust, justice system. More concern being shown for a group of coordinated, brazen thieves than an innocent man on his own property, wildly speculative and libelous characterisations of gun owners ("Experienced Gunman with an 'Arsenal' in his 'Compound' executing an 'Ambush' with military-precision for some unsuspecting gentlemanly, law-breakers") and disproportionate sentencing.

          Yep, that checks all the boxes.

          Welcome to Australia where you do not have the right to protect yourself and the laws of self-defence were designed by a Government committee, so what could possibly go wrong?

          In the event of an attack, yell in a loud voice: "What you are about to do is illegal and punishable by law. Depending on the severity of the assault you are about to dish out to me, you could be sentenced to a term of community service (which you won't really have to attend), a 'no conviction' result won't be recorded, a 'suspended sentence' (added to a lengthy list of pre-existing suspended sentences), or possibly fines or an actual term of imprisonment (but not very long and if you 'show remorse' for getting caught - I mean show remorse for your crime, you will probably walk away free from court)."

          This usually results in offenders apologising and going to home to sign up for online study courses offered by Universities in order to better themselves and go on to lead lives where they contribute positively to society.

          Aerosolising their brain matter and sticking in them an unmarked plot and hence saving the community the hassle of having to pay for their generous hotel stays, protracted legal processes, probationary vigilance and use of law enforcement resources would be completely unethical and immoral, because assailants who run head-first into gun-wielding, terrified senior citizens who are pleading for their lives as they struggle with their attackers, deserve the absolute benefit of the doubt from all of us for misunderstanding their outwardly sickening actions as actually being a desperate cry for help and a product of their troubled upbringings which were clearly the result of not enough welfare state concessions.

      • +1 vote

        Of course if the police were just there when you needed them then crime wouldn't happen. Realistic right.

        More to the point, LEOs have no duty of care, legally, to save lives and do not risk their lives for complete strangers.

        Law enforcement is exactly that. Enforcing legal minimums. They don't appear out of the woodwork when knives are at people's throats and homes are being ransacked. They appear after the fact to assign blame and dole out legal liability.

        Your average John Q. Constable earning a meager >$80,000 annually is not up for putting his life on the line for a complete stranger he's never met, just as he's about to wrap up an unforgiving shift.

        And nor should he be, because he is a man bound to civilian law, woefully ill-equipped and mentally/physically-unprepared to be pulling stunts straight out of Black Hawk Down every second day on the job.

        People who think you can place that amount of trust into officers who are only separated from the other side of the "Thin Blue Line" by 12 months of training (half of which is throwaway academy bullsh*t that never sees the light of day and a good amount of which is on-the-job training), then you're most likely a hypocrite, because in few other professions do we hand out that amount of responsibility and power (including the power of life and death) like it's no big deal.

        The results of what happens when you turn policing into anything more than law enforcement are crystallized very obviously by the United States and their quite-literally, jack-booted Storm Troopers.

        Ordinary cops over here, like the rest of us, want to get home each day, microwave some dinner and veg out in front of a screen.

        Setting them up to be a band of noble white knights only concerned with altruistic ideals and a lifetime commitment to the solemn service of others is only cognitively dissociating oneself from the stark reality that only you yourself can truly be responsible and prepared for your own well-being and safety and sadly that is a thought that almost all Australians leave unpondered until the very last minute, when it's way too late.