What happen to your country?? and when did it start?? I'm not taking the piss here.I lived and worked in OZ and would have standed but gun laws,speeding tickets for 5k over the limit.

Our gun laws really took a dive after the Port Authur massicre in tassie 1996.

But for those of us that are serios about our hunting/shooting the laws are really not that big a deal.
Sure there is very little semi auto use, and that is a shame, but we still can hunt with most other guns (no pistol hunting) and really i feel it has not stopped me in any way from my sport. Guns do need to be stored securly,but i feel that this is a good thing,
registration of firearms is a waste of everybodys time, but its not that big a deal. You just learn to live with the hurdles that they throw at you.
as for speeding fines, well if you don't speed you won't be fined!!

Being from America, I was also wondering what in hell happened to the Aussies?
I intend no disrespect here, but....
Read the above post.

"The laws are really not a big deal."
They must be, they prevent folks from doing what they want to, and owning any type of firearm they want.
"little semi-auto use, and that is a shame."
What's the difference between a semi-auto and a bolt action? They both kill.
"No pistol hunting."
Why? Does that "mean" old pistol just jump up and kill innocent folks? I doubt it.
"Guns need to be stored securely, but I feel that is a good thing."
Is your chain saw "stored securely"? Is your car "stored securely?" Is your kitchen knives "stored securely?"
"Registration of firearms is a waste of everybodys time, but its not that big of a deal." Then why do it?
Here's my point.....Oh well, its not a big deal.
Do you see what is going on? They are nibbling away at your rights. If allowed to continue, they will win.
The same thing is happening in America, and its wrong.
Sorry, if I Pissed any Aussies off.
Get over it. Wake up!

Mid 80's when we accepted registration. I believe (but coudl be wrong) that the Australian Govt also signed into some UN resolution inspired by the Japanese to curtail private firearm ownership by 2020.
Cheers...
Con

The problem is shooters here are not united. When semi auto centrefires were banned, shooters who didn't use them didn't give a toss. Then, when the pump and semi auto shotguns and semi auto rimifires were banned, the same thing happened. Once again with the handguns. The "I'm right mate" syndrome cost us. The divide and conquer strategy has worked.

Shooters here are not militant and vocal enough. The organisations that represent shooters are too worried about being seen as Mr Nice Guy. In addition, not enough shooters are members of shooting bodies like the SSAA.

We need a large, cohesive body to represent shooters and we need to go in hard against any further restrictions.

Rumour has it that the Howard Government is planning more moves against shooters. They are also pretty much forcing an national ID card on the public of Australia, using scaremongering tactics about "fighting terrorism" and such to sneak it in.

All this in a country that allows rapists, drug dealers and all manner of criminals to walk free from court.

quote:

"The laws are really not a big deal."
They must be, they prevent folks from doing what they want to, and owning any type of firearm they want.
"little semi-auto use, and that is a shame."
What's the difference between a semi-auto and a bolt action? They both kill.
"No pistol hunting."
Why? Does that "mean" old pistol just jump up and kill innocent folks? I doubt it.
"Guns need to be stored securely, but I feel that is a good thing."
Is your chain saw "stored securely"? Is your car "stored securely?" Is your kitchen knives "stored securely?"
"Registration of firearms is a waste of everybodys time, but its not that big of a deal." Then why do it?

TJ, I understand what your saying, but i will try and explain my reasons for my statment.
Fistly the laws do not prevent me in any way from doing what I like to do as far as firearm ownership is concerned. The only firearms that i used that have now been banned are the semi auto shotguns....I screamed as loud, if not louder than most when these laws came in, it made absolutly no diffrence to the outcome, they still got banned, and I purchased a brand new under over shotgun, instead, with money to spare from the buy back. I honestly do not feel disadvantaged, I know as well as most shooters that this had no effect on criminal use of firearms, but in the end i also continue to use my firearms as before.

Secondly, pistol hunting in this country was never legal in the first place.I am sure these laws has had an effect on target pistol shooters, and above everybody these guys have suffered the most.

I do feel that having secure gun storage is a good thing. I had a gun safe installed in my house years before it became law, my firearms are way to valuable, so reduces the chance of theft as well as having young children in my home , i felt a little extra piece of mind.I could be wrong, but I am sure most Aussie shooters feel more comfortable that there firearms are stored like this now, and very few would prefer to have them unsecured in there homes.

Registration is a waste of time, I hate it as much as anybody, but other than red tape and paperwork, it does not prevent me from owning the firearms that i would anyway.
If it means that I must register my firearms ,to continue useing them legaly then so be it.
I dont believe that the laws have achieved anythiing, and yes our rights are being nibbled away , but I still am able to own and use 99% of the sporting firearms 365 days of the year1
I loath the gun laws we now have, compared to the way they were, but for the person who is very keen about there sport it has not prevented me in hunting in any way.

Before the law changes, every road sign in the outback or country roads would be riddled with bullet holes by shooters who owned firearms for no other reason, than they could. Now very few of these road signs with bullet holes are seen today. The main benefit of these gun laws has been that a lot of "would be if they could be" shooters have left the scene and the real interest /keen sportsman are still licenced.

I would rather the good old days like most of us, but come on its not the end, far from it, I also oppose these strickter gun controll measures for the reasons that they achieve very little, but the laws are in, there is nothing we can do about it, there is no point looking back, so lets enjoy our sport since we still can,
other than our pistol shooting mates, very little has changed in a practical sense.

Please dont think for a minute that i agree with the gun laws that we have, its just that these laws were brought in 10 years ago, and the reality is most of us good keen Shooters and hunters continue to do so.

There is no point being pesermistic and always looking back.

quote:

Originally posted by TJ:
Here's my point.....Oh well, its not a big deal.
Do you see what is going on? They are nibbling away at your rights. If allowed to continue, they will win.
The same thing is happening in America, and its wrong.
Sorry, if I Pissed any Aussies off.
Get over it. Wake up!

This attitude is Typical American, and by that I mean no disrespect. While you are telling us what is happening to our gun owning rights YOU allow a little piece of legisation called "Eminent Domain" to pass with barely a whimper,you can keep your guns but the government can take your house,demolish it and put a Macdonalds on the site so it can collect more taxes. So an equally good question might be when did the wheels fall off our US cousins property rights???


http://www.dailyping.com/archive/2003/09/29/

I differ from some of the feelings expressed above-------

I disagreed intensely with the banning of our semi autos and did a fair bit of soul searching before handing mine in. The only time in my life that civil disobedience was a real possibility.

It hasn't impacted on our hunting nor the number of firearms we own. We have a lot. Every time we have wanted another, I have had no hassles getting a Permit to Acquire. Mainly because there are three active hunters living here but also being a Firearms Instructor helps.

However, I deeply resented handing in our autos. Three had a lot of sentimental value. My son's godfather (who was also my best man) gave my son a semi auto 22 that had been his father's rifle for my son's christening present. A semi auto shotgun that was my fathers was also crushed as was a semi auto 22 that was my wife's father's rifle. so there was a fair heap of sentimental attachment.

(I know MANY were not handed in because of the attachment felt to their guns. I still remember the sentiments of MANY at the surrender centre in Horsham!!!)

Not to mention missing the extra shots in the mag when flying across a paddock after a fox. Or opening up on rabbits going everywhere ETC.

I agitated and contacted pollie after pollie at the time (AND still do regularly) and I know that two of the ones I know well disagreeed INTENSELY with Howard but went along because of the stick he was waiving. The Nationals had to toe the line or lose all semblance of power as, from memory, they were not required to form a majority government. But there was FAR more involved that just that.

McGrath was strongly opposed and he said he knew that the Nationals (and Howard's Liberals) would NEVER be forgiven for that Act.

I will never be so blaise (sic) about voting as I was before the confiscation.


I know many who feel the same as me. Many much more deeply than me. Much more deeply.

Greybeard, I also dissagreed with handing in of semi -autos from a sentimental point of view, my late father , who had introduced me to hunting at a very young age, had handed down a Browning A5 to me not too long before Port authur.
it was very, very hard for me to hand it in , and i too went very close to not handing it in. (i handed it in on the last hour, last day of the amnesty). , and up until this point I had always voted Liberal, but have never done so since, due to this reason alone, But we must look forward, not back and move on with the laws that are now in place.

quote:

Originally posted by TJ:
Being from America, I was also wondering what in hell happened to the Aussies?
Wake up!

In fact all over the U.S. laws and gun laws are very restricted in one way or another.
Some states are quite good Arizona for instance, others are a mine field.
EG. Some places you can get a permit to carry concealed pistols, but then you can't go into a post office.

We here just wern't in enough numbers to counter the vote power of the non shooting townies. Then all political partys ganged up on us. Our PM threatned/offered to take us to a referendum. After Port Arthur we would have been massacred too with far worse laws.

So we don't appreciate forigners telling us to wake up. We CAN live without auto's.
Mean while the ferals build up because we can't shoot near as many at a time.

The problems with gun laws REALLY STARTED when the NSW gov't tried to ban or restrict a lot of privately owned firearms laws after the so-called gun battle between the BANDIDO and COMMANCHEROS motor-cycle gangs. And also the so-called "normal" bloke Wade Frankum firearm murders. During the Unsworth Gov't.

Unworths lost the election, with one reason being the attempt at restrictive firearm laws.

The State bureacrats got on the Federal bureaucretins with draft oppressive gun laws and waited like the vultures they are for a suitable "trigger" which was the Port Arthur murders.

The detailed oppressive firearms legislation "just suddenly appeared" for Howard to get enacted into law.

Anybody else think that John Howard would like to add another chapter on firearm control to his autobiography ? I'm sure he thinks he sits just to the right of God now that the Libs control the senate too .
Just waiting for the first multiple handgun murder I reckon .

TJ

you are spot on.....i strongly belive that in my life time in this country we will see the private ownership of fire arms a thing of the past...it will happen sooner than later......did you read what howard said... firearm laws are a evolving thing...DOSENT THAT SAY ENOUGH
REGARDS DANIEL

Hey folks....
I'm certainly not bashing Aussies. We all have to stick together in this thing. I was just courious to get opinions on when/why their attitude on guns changed.
I think you have the same problem we have. The liberals who live in a never/never land in the large cities are out numbering us.
In the real world, when you have more restrictive gun laws, don't the crime rate go up? I think I remember reading that about Aust. and England. In America, when a state allows concealed carry, the crime rate goes down. The bad guys don't know who is packing and who is not. I guess common sense isn't common anymore.
If not for the NRA, the liberals would have all our guns by now. You need to draw a line in the sand, and say "NO MORE".

From TJ -
"In the real world, when you have more restrictive gun laws, don't the crime rate go up? I think I remember reading that about Aust. and England. In America, when a state allows concealed carry, the crime rate goes down. The bad guys don't know who is packing and who is not. I guess common sense isn't common anymore.
If not for the NRA, the liberals would have all our guns by now. You need to draw a line in the sand, and say "NO MORE""

I don't know TJ - seems to me that Aus and NZ shooters don't want the American system of concealed carry any more than John Howard does. Real men sort things out with fists? To my knowledge Aus and definately NZ have never had concealed carry of firmearms. Suggesting this dilutes the issue here, as well as giving non-shooters a further cause to label gun owners here as dangerous and 'backwards'. Maybe I'm wrong, but perhaps the issue for most shooters here is getting to use sensible firearms sensibly, without being unneccesarily targeted by vote hungry politicians. 'Wild west' notions of reduced crime rates due to armed citizens have never been part of our civil culture - firearms for sport, not vigilantes.

One good thing you mention, dugga--, is getting rid of ratbag shooters. That has certainly happened here too.

Little Johnny apparently threatened to try and ban centrefire rifles as well when certain politicians opposed him on semi autos (behind closed doors). he thought because he had bipartisan support (plus public support) that he might just have got away with it. Supposedly, that was the stick that got some politicians to reluctantly agree..... supposedly.....

I could never vote Liberal again unless there was a change in a big way. Its no wonder Savage and Ingram whipped their National opponents in two supposedly safe National seats.

The choice here seems to be independant.

I know there's no use in dwelling on the past but that prick reminds me of it so damn often!

The problem with voting independant is that so many of them are just labor/liberal party stooges.

As for apathy among shooters, it has to be one of the principle reason why that little c@nt gets away with so much. There have been several attempts to set up another minor party to represent shooters in OZ, to date NONE of them have worked, mostly because of the 'She'll be right mate' attitude.
Guess what, it won't be all right.

The handgun massacre? Does Monash Uni ring a bell? Does the latest round of 'compulsory accquistition' and handgun ownership restrictions sound familiar?

"I can still enjoy my sport" Yeah, heard it before, while standing in line to surrender my amazingly lethal 10/22, which was such a threat to nation security and welfare that it had to be destroyed. The fucking idiot in front of me said 'Ah well, it won't affect my hunting'.
Guess what dickhead, my guns were NOT FOR SALE! That little c@unt in Canberra STOLE them!
The minute the Government can legislate do this shit, and you let them, you cease to be a citizen, and become a subject.
So you can vote? Big deal. Hands up all those who think it will make any difference? Unless EVERY one of us is prepared to vote on this SINGLE issue, we are just going to get fucked over, again and again.

Rant switch set to standby, fire retardant suit on.

Jimbob:
Sorry, you missed my point and did not answer the question.
Question: Did the crime rate increase in Aust. when the new gun restrictions were put in place?
PS...I know the answer, I've seen the statistics.

Concealed carry has nothing to do with sorting things out. It has to do with protecting yourself and your family from the bad guys who are out there.
"Wildwest notions of reduced crime rates due to armed citizens.."
I look at it as a common sense notion not a WildWest one. I think if you will do some research, you will find that the more gun restrictions you have the more crimes you will have. Our Washington DC is a good example. Common citizens cannot legally have guns there but their gun related crime rate is the highest in America. I wonder why?
Here's the key. Ordinary lawabiding citizens do not commit crimes with guns, the bad guys do. They do not abide by the gun laws anyway.
If a bad guy assulted your wife or kids, would you reach for a gun or the phone?

Howard said in his infamous flak-jacket, to a hugecrowd of shooters at a rally in Vic:

"This is a democracy, I believe what I am doing, but if you don't and the people don't VOTE ME OUT OF OFFICE."

(or something to that effect)

Guess what?

He is still there. Still using the issue as a diversion. Still the fucking cunt he was then.

The day I had to surrender a rifle stolen from me was the day I regarded the government as corrupt and heading for future dictatorship.

But WHO DO YOU VOTE FOR?

As was mentioned BI-PARTISAN support. All the state governments that agreed to the legislation were LABOR. The Nationals are Liberal stooges. The Democrats and Greens are the worst of all. One Notion is impotent. The Shooters Party only exists in NSW.

BTW I have never voted Liberal or Labor directly in my life.

quote:

Originally posted by TJ:
Concealed carry has nothing to do with sorting things out. It has to do with protecting yourself and your family from the bad guys who are out there.

"Concealed carry" is largely a non-issue in Australia. Discussing it just diverts attention and wastes time on what are the relevant issues here.

Thanks Nitro - that's what I was getting at with TJ. It's all about context.

TJ, I agree with you as to the causes of this tightening of Gun Laws, but can you refer me to those statistics you mention? It's never been legal to concealed carry, so how do you get statistics that relate specifically to Australia? England perhaps, American definately, but Australia?

Also, you have to note the completely different culture of gun ownership here in Australia. People buy guns for sport, not home defence. It might not seem common sense to you, but I'd prefer to leave the law enforcement to the Police, to have criminals that only carry baseball bats and to respond in kind. I'll save the guns for hunting game, not people TJ.

So ... have the French students shown us the only effective means of changing Government policy in the Western so called democratic nations ???
Cheers...
Con

From Nitro-

"But WHO DO YOU VOTE FOR?

As was mentioned BI-PARTISAN support. All the state governments that agreed to the legislation were LABOR. The Nationals are Liberal stooges. The Democrats and Greens are the worst of all. One Notion is impotent. The Shooters Party only exists in NSW."

(I don't know how to do that properly yet)

I agree totally, Nitro. Who do you vole for? I couldn't vote for that arrogant little bastard, no matter what. You said it well about the others.

A couple of Nationals have been very forthright in private discussions but they ain't exactly helping us. Yeah, I know, numbers. Party solidarity.

Its a pity there wasn't a unified voting front by all who cared about their guns/ hunting/ rifles. It isn't a big percentage of the population but it would cause some pollies a fair bit of grief in some marginal seats. If they saw their snouts were about to be dragged out of the swill bucket, they might listen a bit more to some of their constituants.

Most are complete tools.

In the last few elections I have been voting indirectly Labour.As long as the votes weren't going to the pricks in the Liberal party.I will not vote Greens or those other bible bashing bastards...Family First??(libs in disguise)

quote:

Originally posted by Sambar 9.3:
The problem with voting independant is that so many of them are just labor/liberal party stooges.

As for apathy among shooters, it has to be one of the principle reason why that little c@nt gets away with so much. There have been several attempts to set up another minor party to represent shooters in OZ, to date NONE of them have worked, mostly because of the 'She'll be right mate' attitude.
Guess what, it won't be all right.

The handgun massacre? Does Monash Uni ring a bell? Does the latest round of 'compulsory accquistition' and handgun ownership restrictions sound familiar?

"I can still enjoy my sport" Yeah, heard it before, while standing in line to surrender my amazingly lethal 10/22, which was such a threat to nation security and welfare that it had to be destroyed. The fucking idiot in front of me said 'Ah well, it won't affect my hunting'.
Guess what dickhead, my guns were NOT FOR SALE! That little c@unt in Canberra STOLE them!
The minute the Government can legislate do this shit, and you let them, you cease to be a citizen, and become a subject.
So you can vote? Big deal. Hands up all those who think it will make any difference? Unless EVERY one of us is prepared to vote on this SINGLE issue, we are just going to get fucked over, again and again.

Rant switch set to standby, fire retardant suit on.

That about says it for me.

We gotta stop being nice guys about it, grow some balls and get a bit of C*&T in us.

Nice guys finish last.

jimbob:
The statistics I referred to, were for more restrictive gun registration, not concealed carry.
Point...When you take a gun away from a lawabiding citizen, you leave that citizen vulnerable to non lawabiding citizens.
If you "prefer to leave the law enforcement to the police", next time a badguy breaks into your home and assults you wife or kids, call the police. How long will it take for them to get there?
Do all the criminals in Australia carry baseball bats? I doubt it.
"People buy guns for sport not home defense". You will buy a gun to shoot rabbits and foxes, but not buy a gun to protect your family?
I do not understand.
Here's the AMERICAN wild west mentality, I have the right to protect myself, my family and my pocessions from the bad guys. Period.
If that takes a gun, so be it.
Exemple...Your a bad guy intent on breaking into my home and either stealing stuff or assulting my family. I have a S&W Model Model 60, 38 Special on my night stand.I will shoot you, and I will kill you if I can. I will not call the cops and wait for them to come. I am not normally agressive and do not want to shoot you. However, I do have the right to protect my family, my pocessions and myself from you. I will.
If you want to call that the Wildwest attitude, so be it, I call it survival of the fittest.
By the way, did the violent assults increase or decrease after the new gun registration rules?
As I said before, I know the answer. They increased, I wonder why?

That's the thing TJ, I do agree with some of your points, but I find it very difficult to believe that violent crime increases because guns are taken out of circulation. People here never carried them to prevent violence in the first place. I don't think the fact that we have to lock up our weapons, and don't have access to military weapons forms a distinct link with rising crime. There are a multitude of other factors that could be causing a rise in crime - growth of organised crime, rising gap between rich and poor amongst others. As I said, show me the statistics and the methodology, I'll have a look for myself.

Also, Australia and America ARE different places. I'd rather that Australia stayed a place where guns weren't the agreed way of sorting out problems. I, and many others don't want the domestic arms race here that you take for granted in the States. Call it an entente on you want- the less people who up the ante with firearms, the safer the majority are. I'm happy for you if you want to protect your family etc in the manner you choose, in your country, but I really don't think the American model is applicable in Australia. Here, that sort of argument causes more restrictions and anti-gun sentiment.

In the meantime, happy shooting TJ - you can wing your burglars, and I'll take to mine with the cosh

quote:

Originally posted by jimbob:
Thanks Nitro - that's what I was getting at with TJ. It's all about context.

TJ, I agree with you as to the causes of this tightening of Gun Laws, but can you refer me to those statistics you mention? It's never been legal to concealed carry, so how do you get statistics that relate specifically to Australia? England perhaps, American definately, but Australia?

Also, you have to note the completely different culture of gun ownership here in Australia. People buy guns for sport, not home defence. It might not seem common sense to you, but I'd prefer to leave the law enforcement to the Police, to have criminals that only carry baseball bats and to respond in kind. I'll save the guns for hunting game, not people TJ.

Jimbob, actually it is legal to carry concealed, you just need the right licence. And the right job, one which usually puts you in harms way. Or just the right connections, witness John Laws carrying a 38Spl for all those years. He vehemently attacked our right to self-loaders, all the while carrying a 38 as part of his daily attire.
A doctor I once knew (violently anti-gun) saw no contradiction in legislating against our rights to self-loaders, and him being escorted everywhere by armed security guards.
Just another example of the double standards imposed on law abiding citizens (or should that read subjects?).

TJ, here in OZ 'home defence' is NOT a valid reason to own a firearm. Hunting, target shooting, historical collection and pest control are.

If I felt the need for a firearm for home protection, I'd probably put 'pest destruction' on the application, it sounds about right!

Thanks for the clarification Dave - typical Aus. govt! It seems to be a given that such a license is out of the question for your everyday shooter though. As usual, your posts make for very interesting reading!

Cheers!

I am glad to see that the heat is still there over our firearms laws and the amendments made by little Johnnie.

TJ ,
Shooting a criminal who breaks into your house gets you sent straight to jail here . Don't pass go , don't collect $200 .

Think the comment about French students describes the logical course of action when they announce the next buyback .

GBB,
Not forgotten ... NEVER forgiven.
Cheers...
Con

We had to hand in our autos?

quote:

Originally posted by Bushchook:
TJ ,
Shooting a criminal who breaks into your house gets you sent straight to jail here . Don't pass go , don't collect $200 .

Bullshit. May be different between some states but many states allow reasonable force judged by the person (ie the home owner) to be used to protect themselves, their family AND their property.

A number of house burglars were shot in the first few months of the legal change in SA and the cops tried to charge several of the guys. Not one of the charges was successful as all the burglars were shot dead ie one witness, the homeowner.

If the homeowner was able to assert they believe the force they used was reasonable in their opinion in the circumstances they were within the law to shoot dead an intruder/criminal.

Obviously if you shoot someone in the back if he is running away, your argument is going to have a lot of trouble as would be a "finishing" shot!

If you can show a "warning" shot, it would also be a huge asset. I'll leave it to the reader when/how the warning shot is made. Also if the argument is the person shoots at the largest body mass ie in panic and hurried, all the bullshit about shooting legs out disappears, which only happens in movies anyway.

Funny thing after three intruder fatalities and another off-duty security guard who shot dead a bandit at a service station we haven't heard about many of these incidents since. Maybe brazen breakins to houses with people inside have decreased ???

One of the incidents was an eighty year old bloke who had been broken into three times and bashed. He used his old shotgun to shoot a intruder. Believe it or not the cops tried to charge him but as he should he got off.

People have a natural right to protect themselves in the cases of intruders. But make sure these laws apply in your state.

NitroX,
Respectfully, "warning shots" are a big no-no. If you shoot and miss that's one thing, warning shots imply you are not in absolute imminent fear for your life or that of someone else.
Cheers...
Con

Con is correct about warning shots.

In addition, if you shoot an intruder over here, be prepared to answer why, if you could go and unlock you gun safe, your separate ammo box, then load it all, why you didn't just run away.

You have NO RIGHT shoot someone in order to protect your property in Australia.

quote:

Originally posted by choppa:
We had to hand in our autos?

Fenring,
If your a jewellery dealer you can get a concealed permit to protect your PROPERTY, but NOT your life. Likewise you can hire an armed security guard to protect your watch BUT NOT your life. Very strange state of affairs ... notice Govt doesn't like to clarify exactly what is and isnt allowed but will quote legislation. I dont think this is an area they want clearly defined.
Cheers...
Con

Actually Con, it's the other way around, you are only permitted to use lethal force to protect life, not property. You are also required to retreat, where possible without endangering your, or other lives.
"A person may use such force as would be deemed necessary by a reasonable man, to prevent the commision, continuance or completion of a felony".
The other thing in our favour, is the historical interpretation that you are not required to retreat in your own home, or as a guest in anothers home.
But you will have a hell of a time in court trying to convince the court that you were in the right to shoot someone over the theft of property.
You must be able to articulate a reasonable fear for your own or others life.