Previous Post
Next Post


“A possessive and jealous [Gerard Vincent] Poulson accused his wife of one year of infidelity during an argument at their home in February 2012,” reports. “He became enraged – shouting and swearing at her and jabbing her in the side of the throat, the judge said. He then went into a bedroom and retrieved a .303 Lithgow rifle, shouldered the weapon and advanced on his wife with the barrel pointing towards her.” Quick aside. South Wales’ Lithgow Small Arms Factory, produced the SMLE [Short Magazine Lee-Enfield or “Smelly”] Mk III rifle from 1926 until 1953. The .303 British cartridge goes all the way back to 1895. And this story of jealousy is as old as time itself. Right so . . .

She backed away as Poulson said “You’re dead, bitch”.

He put the rifle between her eyes and pulled the trigger. The rifle was not loaded.

The terrified woman fell to the floor.

When spoken to by police some months later, Poulson said his act was intended only to demonstrate to his wife how quickly a woman could be killed if she was unfaithful and her husband was so minded.

A shot across her bow, so to speak. OK against her forehead. The judge was unimpressed with Mr. Poulson’s theoretical demonstration. Maybe it had something to do with Poulson’s previous convictions for choking his wife and banging her head into a floor.

Clearly, Poulson showed a careless disregard for muzzle discipline. Or worse, not. Which earned him some IGOTD hardware and a few months in the boob. Yes, that what the Aussies call it. Which also describes today’s Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Got to ask, does anyone on this site believe this Gerard Vincent Poulson fellow should be allowed access to firearms? I’m kinda surprised, considering the incident is said to have occurred in New South Wales, that it could have happened at all, since I thought the Aussie government confiscated all firearms that were in private hands.

    • you can find Aussie firearms laws online, but basically, they can own rifles and shotguns as long as they are not semi-auto, with a few exceptions for professional hunters who eradicate pests. No handguns.

      • Actually handguns are legal (class H), provided you are an active member (must attend a number shoots per year) of a pistol club. And you must be a member of such club for a few months before you can get a license. And then there are limits on what handguns you can own. Basically minimum 4in. barrel, 10-shot mag and no high powered stuff. I think only people who can get .45s are silhouette shooters.

      • Bill, all gun owners in OZ have to be licensed to have access to any weapon. Further to this, Poulson was a Vietnam veteran and as such, would have found it extremely difficult to obtain a license due to cases of PTSD in the Vietnam veteran community. If PTSD was a contributing factor in his actions, I wonder if this was raised at his trial? Just a thought.

    • “…does anyone on this site believe this Gerard Vincent Poulson fellow should be allowed access to firearms? ”

      The question, Conway, is NOT should he be allowed, but who has the authority to deny him his natural rights? This happened in Australia, so apparently, not having the supposed political protection of our Second Amendment, the Ausie government believes that they have the authority to take away the natural right of self defense from their subjects.

      The fact remains, however, no matter what the government believes it has the authority to do, people can and will arm themselves in whatever way they find necessary to their lives, within the limitations of their ability to do so, not the limitations of what is allowed by government(s). No matter how much authority the government claims or usurps from the people, the results are only as effective as the ability and willingness of that government to enforce is laws.

      Two thousand plus pages of Obamacare cannot FORCE me to participate in their stupid program. Government thugs threatening me might. No amount of government encroachment legislation of a natural right will convince anyone to comply, if they disagree, only draconian enforcement of the law will elicit ANY degree of compliance, and then never 100%.

      The point here is not that Poulson should, or even could lose his right to possess or own or even use firearms, that is his natural right whether or not we like him or the use/misuse he makes of those weapons. The point is that his wife should NEVER be helpless and unable to shoot the son of a bitch when he tries some stupid crap like that. This should have fallen under the “Should Have Been a Defensive Gun Use” category, or maybe “This is What Happens to a Disarmed Populace.”

      • My brother is not a son of a bitch. His wife knew it was unloaded and she set him up, no matter what the judge said. Why else was it so long before she and her sister went to the police? She was as drunk as he was.

        • Were you there Shane???
          Do you blindly believe everything your brother says???
          Why would I put my family through this hell if I just “wanted to set him up”
          Face the facts and stop putting me down, your brother needs help.

    • Personally I don’t believe inmates should have access to firearms. So no.

      • Persons confined within prison facilities have many of their natural rights curtailed, but certainly not revoked.

        The power of the State, enforced by the guards, can and does attempt to restrict weapons in these facilities, and appears reasonably successful in keeping out firearms, while being remarkably unsuccessful at keeping out drugs or preventing sexual and other assaults on the persons supposedly under their care and protection.

        I do not fault the prison system for their efforts to protect themselves from persons known to be dangerous and willing to violate other people’s natural rights, but the number and inventiveness of weapons (arms) created by those inmates is documentary proof that the right to keep and bear arms can never be entirely repealed.

        So yes, for entirely valid reasons persons who have shown their willingness to abuse the rights of others should be discouraged to the greatest degree possible – following conviction – but giving the government the blanket authority to determine who is a criminal and who may not therefore exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right is an exercise in futility and a recipe for tyranny.

        The only successful and reasonable system of preventing the anti-social use of firearms, or any weapons, is for the miscreants to be shot dead during the event. This can only be accomplished if the government is kept entirely out of the equation and does not infringe on the natural right, regardless of whether or not we like or approve of the individual exercising it.

      • Do you think he should be imprisoned for life for this event? If not you’ve just danced around the answer.

        My answer is “no.” I think someone this criminally negligent with a gun, has proven that they are willing to assault someone like that with a gun, should be prohibited. Just like someone reckless enough with a car should not have one.

        • how does telling him “you cannot own guns” stop him from owning guns again? if he cannot be trusted with a gun, then someone needs to watch him 24/7 to make sure he doesn’t get one.

          • Exactly. You cannot stop people from getting guns. You may be aghast, but I think this is the beauty of it.

            We have to accept ugliness, or there is no beauty.

    • The gun didn’t make him abuse his wife. Anyone who truly shouldn’t have access to a gun because they are too dangerous and unstable are people who should not have access to the outside world or any area above ground.

      His access to guns isn’t the problem. Beating her with a hard glass ashtray or a fistwould accomplish the same end of battering her. He’s a problem because he’s bad. His right to guns isn’t on trial. His history of assaulting her is.

      • I contend that it was his wife’s lack of access to an effective self-defense pistol that led him to believe he could abuse her with impunity.

        It wasn’t his access to the rifle, it was her lack of access to a weapon of her own that caused the problem.

  2. That’s a no.4, not a no.3. Lithgow never made the no.4. My personal all time favorite milsurp is the no.4.

    • Here 3, although mine is the only military surplus firearm I own. It’s amazing what the British soldiers could do with that rifle. They were expected to hit a 12 inch plate at 300 yards 15 times per minute. I read about a Sergeant in 1914 who hit the plate 38 times (including 3 reloads). The Huns found out the Brits didn’t need very many machine guns when every soldier shot like that.

    • I think it is a number 3. The no. 4 had a peep/ladder sight at the back of the receiver. This picture shows a rifle with the sight partway down the barrel, like a typical no. 3.

      • Now it’s a 3. The first photo was a 4. 4’s were never made in Australia. Photo got changed.

    • Banning it would not solve as many problems as you may imagine, but I agree it causes far more problems than it ever solves.

      Twentieth Century feminism resulted in unions that were unhealthy because popular media succeeded in fostering views about marriage that are utterly unrealistic. That “perfect” partner (product of hopes and dreams, not real life) will ALWAYS turn out to be less than ideal that the partner anticipated.

      “OH! This is NOT perfect like they told me it would be! OH!!” No, you sold yourself a lie, an abstraction.

      It’s supposed to be fostered by mutual respect and cooperation. Not by trying to mold the other party into someone just like yourself. He/she is not living up to my expectations!


  3. Conway;

    I certainly DONT believe that we can truly “disallow” this man access to firearms in any kind of meaningful way without his perpetual incarceration. That seems to be the true lesson of the story.

  4. This dude clearly shows a violent nature, he should never be allowed to have access to any weapon again, including knives.

    • Gunr, if the guy cannot be trusted with guns, knives, blunt instruments or any other item that can be used as a weapon, he should be locked away permanently or executed.

  5. Guys who physically abuse wives always escalate (there are a few rare exceptions). Can’t begin to count the times I’ve cared for battered wives. The usual story is: so he beat me up 3 times this month, but the NEXT time I’m going to leave him. Always the next time, sadly. Was so glad Texas passed a law that if a spouse has visible injuries from abuse, the LEO can file charges without the victims permission. That way the victim doesn’t have to fear retaliation.

    • Y’know, I remember that passing (I’m in TX), but haven’t ever heard of it happening. Is it working?

  6. Seized by raw emotion and notions of possession. This guy would be at home with Moms Demand Action.

  7. Thanks for this clarification.If the matkers in to which we export are starting to contract, this could well spell even more trouble for our economy.The only positive indicator in our economy at the moment is our export capability – which is driven by external demand.If that demand starts to ease off, it will be another nail in this country\’s economic coffin.

  8. If he was here could he legally able to buy a firearm with Poulson’s previous convictions for choking his wife and banging her head into a floor. Sounds like 2 convictions so that pesky question 11.i on the 4473 here in the US would not allow him to purchase a firearm.

  9. I am extremely distraught by this post, as the subject happens to be my father. He is from Hobart so this incident occurred in Hobart, Tasmania. I unconditionally support my father and stand by him. Obviously you unfortunate people DO NOT KNOW AND DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE TRUTH AND WHOLE STORY, especially the truth behind the VILE, LYING, and MANIPULATIVE woman who has destroyed my family. He is a Vietnam War Veteran, has knowledge of firearms and has NEVER misused them in the past, and I have NEVER felt unsafe around him in my entire life. The previous conviction you people refer to is related to the same event, just dealt with on a separate occasion. I think the person responsible for this pathetic site should check his information before publishing and encouraging people to comment on a very sensitive issue.

    • Of course it is a sensitive issue. And I’m sure nearly everyone here would welcome any efforts on your part to set the record straight, to enlighten us.

      Nothing is stopping you. Nothing at TTAG, anyway. Please, tell us.

      • I would be open to reading the other side of the story. A vindictive spouse making up lies to get the other spouse in legal trouble is a theme with which some, perhaps many, of us here are familiar. Jennifer Poulson, if you believe it prudent and want to offer any correction to the story, I would appreciate your efforts. Regardless, I wish the best for your father.

      • I support my niece. You do need to get your facts and don’t believe everything that might be said in a court when the law favours the “distraught woman”. The truth always sounds bland to emotional ramblings. Just mind you own business.

Comments are closed.