Pardon my ignorance, but did it include hunting firearms? Where was the line drawn? Can a hunter possess numerous firearms and ammunition in their home currently?

G'day Fella's,

Yes Norton Law Abiding Firearm Owners (LAFO's), can still own Bolt, Pump, Lever Action and Single shot hunting and target rifles, and U&O, SxS and Lever Action shotguns and also target handguns (.38Cal, 9mm and smaller).

But please remember that the Australian government appears to be fully signed up to the UN's Citizen Disarmament policy and their Agenda 21/Sustainable Development policies.

If you are looking to move from New Hampshire to Australia, this would be a back ward step.
I believe President Trump, is the best thing that could happen to True Democracy and Anti-UN policies on the planet!

Hope that helps

Doh!
Homer

Thanks Homer. Nope not moving there, just came up chatting with my buds yesterday on our drive north to hare hunt.

Imagine disarming law-abiding citizens worldwide (because those are the only ones that would abide by the UN agenda).....a world of sitting ducks. Do they disregard mankind's history altogether?

G'Day Norton, yes mate but these are the New Socialist, and they will do it correctly this time (according to them).
God help us I say!

Just a polite question back to you.
What is your "Norton" handle based after, British motorcycles or something else?

Good Hare huntin, there Norton!

Regards
Homer

Howdy Homer!

One of the fellows I used to correspond with in VIC that died of a HA.

Told me he and many others took junk guns to that confiscation doings
to get much more that they were worth. Even some single shot .22's and old broken shotguns etc.
(you know who i'm talking of)

Can you elaborate on that a bit?

Assume you're staying well mate?

Thanks,

George

They didn't buy back anything but semi auto rifles and pump or semi auto shotguns. I'm sure others were handed in but without compensation.
Farmers can still own category C firearms as described above for pest control but are limited to using them on their own properties and need to show that they can't achieve the same thing with more readily available category A or B firearms.
Semi auto centrefire rifles are now category D and pretty much limited to professional pest control outfits.

quote:

Originally posted by HomerOz:
G'Day Norton, yes mate but these are the New Socialist, and they will do it correctly this time (according to them).
God help us I say!

Just a polite question back to you.
What is your "Norton" handle based after, British motorcycles or something else?

Good Hare huntin, there Norton!

Regards
Homer

Thanks Homer! Ed Norton was Ralph Kramden's sidekick on an old TV show here in the states called "The Honeymooners". A real classic and one of my all-time favorites.

We did in fact whack 3 snowshoe hares Saturday morning....including one for me using my TC Contender handgun .410 left-handed (recovering from right shoulder surgery but unwilling to sit home!).

Thanks bush, it's been awhile since that took place. sure seems like he said they "wanted guns and it didn't matter which it was". It's possible I'm remembering wrong too.

Norton: That's about what I figured you came up with. Funny bunch on that show. Enjoyed their jokes a lot too.

George

Unlike Homer, Norton, I'm inclined to think the gun buy-back was one of the few good things John Howard did. He went too far in including all sporting autos and pump-action shotguns but, by banning assault rifles, dislocated the deranged computer-game player from the default weapon of choice, at which point mass murders with firearms stopped in their tracks.

Such a ban would never work in America but there is a great feeling of freedom knowing you can walk down the street without needing a gun to defend yourself.

Most of us here in "the Colonies" walk down the street unarmed every day. You've been watching too many Hollywood movies! BTW, our sense of freedom extends to owning any gun we want without fear of some dumba-- politician taking it away from us. Have you ever noticed that it's the bullet that kills, not whether the firearm is semi-auto or pump. And what's up with your bans on semi-auto and pump shotguns? You've got some real scared politicians over there.

Thanks again for the replies gents.

I like the LAFO thing.....that would be 99.99% of us gun owners here in the states. Funny thing about criminals, they ignore laws. Go figure.

PS sambarman....if you've ever noticed, 57% of murders and 80% of violent crime is committed by ~6% (black males) of the population here with the vast majority being black on black crime.

quote:

...Such a ban would never work in America but there is a great feeling of freedom knowing you can walk down the street without needing a gun to defend yourself.

...which puts one at risk from bullies with fists, sticks, and knives.

Walking around gun free and thinking one can be safe is an illusion many yearn for but, ultimately prices are paid at many levels.

Think about the meat sheep, for example. The little darlings are well protected and cared for until that fateful day arrives...

Well, JAS, nowhere on earth is completely safe but generally our streets are here, unless you are a gang member, of course.

I do know something about carrying handguns. I had one when I was hunting in Wyoming 30 years ago, based on Pondoro's theory that if a big cat or bear knocks the rifle out of your hand, you might be able to poke a pistol in its ear.

Trouble was, the one I had was kind of heavy and used to drag on my pants. You could carry one unconcealed in town but there were places that wouldn't let you in, so there is a certain freedom in not having to think about stuff like that.

G'Day Fella's,

Despite what SM338 was suggesting, here is a video from His home town (mainly).
Please note how the Armed Criminals just do as they please, and us unarmed Australian civilians, are just Victims in Waiting (some of which, are shown at the end of this same video).
https://www.facebook.com/sandr...os/1652656994800772/

Doh!
Homer

Wyoming changed that as did Idaho now we can carry them concealed without a permit.

I wonder which two states in the US has the fewest mass shootings..

Doh! indeed, Homer. The problem is that some of the 'racist scum' are good old boys, possibly Redland rednecks, born and bred in this country.

News footage like that is ... news footage. In a city of nearly five million people, stuff does happen. The only way to find real meaning would be to compare statistics between Melbourne and American cities of similar size. Without spending a week trawling for such statistics I couldn't venture any such profundity.

Gazing into the Wikipedia article below, however, it appears the USA has a murder rate almost five times that of Australia - and I know that Melbourne is more law abiding than many other parts of the country.

The article following that suggests the murder rate in Victoria is lower than either NSW or Queensland, for instance.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...tional_homicide_rate

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

G'Day Fella's,

FYI, below you will find a link to a speech by Ms Katie Hopkins, that I found interesting. This video runs for 25 minutes but well worth the listen (if you have an open mind).

Also, SM338 I didn't spend a week or even days searching for my previous video post, it was on Face Book, on the same day that I posted it here.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fp...back-frontpagemagcom

Doh!
Homer

Well Homer, it would probably take me a week to digest all of the drivel in Katie's rant, too, but I will start with a massive non sequitur in her first paragraph:
"... I am a straight, white, conservative female with one husband and three children under 13, and where I come from, back in Blighty, that virtually makes me an endangered species. I'm on the extinctions list, the list of animals that are due for extinction."

Let's get this straight. If a woman is, white, conservative, married with three children and in the social position this one obviously occupies, she is one of the world's winners, in no way any more endangered extinction-wise than anyone else.

Of course with global warming and a crazy bunch of world leaders all with their fingers on the button, it may be we are all endangered - but zipping over her rant suggests that is not her thrust.

G'Day Fella's,

Further to this (my second last post) and FYI;
https://au.news.yahoo.com/vide...-in-braybrook-brawl/

Doh!
Homer

Yes, that's a terrible story, Homer. I've just been to the funeral of a hit-and-run victim, so know something about the ripples of horror such things can bring.

In this case, the victim was in the country, was not likely to have been involved in illegal drugs, and did not get his throat cut or hit by anyone so far labelled as a dark person - but the father of two died just the same. It was thought he might well have survived had the perpetrator stop to help - but did not and has not come forward since as far as I know.

It happened in deer country and I would not be surprised if whoever did it was someone we might have considered one of our own. Wrongdoers can hide in the strangest places.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338
He went too far in including all sporting autos and pump-action shotguns but, by banning assault rifles, dislocated the deranged computer-game player from the default weapon of choice, at which point mass murders with firearms stopped in their tracks.

Such a ban would never work in America but there is a great feeling of freedom knowing you can walk down the street without needing a gun to defend yourself.

In Western Australia we have never been legally able to own assault rifles. Personally I have never felt the need to own one so wasn't devastated when Howard made them more difficult to license in other states.
You've either been reading far too much Liberal Party propaganda or believe everything you see in the media though if you seriously think Howard's gun laws are responsible for mass murders with firearms "stopping in their tracks" after the buyback.
That "fact"is just a case of selective use of statistics being used to defend a flawed proposition..
A very good article here that should help give more insight into what has really happened since the Port Arthur massacre..
https://www.spectator.com.au/2...understood-gun-laws/

That's an interesting story, Bushchook, and valid up to a point. Believe me, despite his being overly generous to self-funded retirees, I am anything but a fan of John Howard or Liberal Party propaganda.

The exact definition of a mass murder is a moot point of course but I don't recall any of the seven-to-35-victim gun massacres we had became familiar with, since 1996.

The general drop in murders is a different matter and, as has been pointed out, a trend predating Howard's laws. The drop in suicides by shooting did drop but automatics have little mechanical relevance there. I understand the number of hangings increased, hardly an improvement except in house cleaning, perhaps.

I actually think Howard's heavy-handed approach to this may have had a role in creating a critical mass for criminals importing illegal handguns, as did Tony Blair's ban on pistols in the UK.

In the old days lots of bank robbers etc would acquire an old .22 semi-auto, cut the barrel and stock down and carry that to the job. (Whether they also shortened the springs to cope with the drop in cycling power, I don't know.)

However, once the supply of those rifles diminished, I believe there developed an incentive for drug smugglers to widen their range, leading to the situation we have now where no self-respecting gangster would be caught dead with a cut-down .22 rifle.

Bad guys and lunatics can kill strangers with all sorts of means, including that sacred cow the car, but banning assault rifles spoilt the fantasy for deranged examples of those who spend all day pretending to blow people away on their computer screens.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Unlike Homer, Norton, I'm inclined to think the gun buy-back was one of the few good things John Howard did. He went too far in including all sporting autos and pump-action shotguns but, by banning assault rifles, dislocated the deranged computer-game player from the default weapon of choice, at which point mass murders with firearms stopped in their tracks.

Your post makes no sense.

Firstly 'Mass murders' with firearms are too rare an event to be correlated to anything.

The important statistic,' normal murders' aka 99% of the murder statistic, about 100x more common than mass murders do not support any bans of semi-autos being useful, period.

The money could be better spent banning fast cars, alcohol, backyard pool drownings, then one of the rarest forms of human harm, 'a mass killing'...

Secondly, banning all semiautos was about the most wasteful, ill conceieved and unilaterally unfair legislation in history.

Dozens of collectable guntypes, all the sporting and fowling guns(beretta, Benelli etc), purpose built medium game hunting rifles with no tactical purpose in any part of their makeup( Remington 7400, Gevarm, CZ etc). All gone so 'an 'SKK' couldn't find their way into the hands of 'insane computer game kids' hands. Meanwhile SKK's still being used illegally all the time anyway.

Are you yourself deranged to consider this 'well thought out' legislation?

Thirdly no correlation between gun control and reducing murders. Too many other factors involved.

Brazil for example has more restrictive gun laws than we do and murder rate with guns 6x higher than the US.

Care to explain that.

NOt sure but in the US I think it would be the beginning of a civil war..but one never knows, a humans piss can turn to buttermilk at times, big talk, little do can prevail...I hope it never comes to this, besides it would void the Constitution...

What a comforting term that is, Karl: 'normal murders'!

Unfortunately, I'm finding your argument a little fuzzy, in a different way, but I'll give it a go.

Pretty much all murders are bad - killings that are defensible usually have different labels. For all that, 'mass murders' are one of the worst kinds of homicide because they involve multiple innocent victims and those victims are mostly without any connection to the perpetrator. Illegal and immoral as murders tend to be, most involve some offence having been given to the murderer, accept for the drive-by killing, also a self-loader speciality.

"Mass murders" with guns may be rare compared with your 'normal murders' but we had something like 17 within a couple of decades before 1996 and they seem to occur monthly in the US. Don't you think it would be nice if you could send your kids to kindergarten or the cinema without worrying about such things?

As I've said before, I consider John Howard's laws went way too far, and may have even had counter-productive effect in relation to handguns. In fact I was in the process of designing a new self-loading shotgun with the dynamics of London DB just before the Port Arthur massacre, so I do realise the use of semi-autos and was affected by the ban.

Anyway, it is not true that all the guns handed in were melted down. Some went into museums and some were sold overseas. I know of one guy who was given the option of disposing of his Midas Grade Browning but he insisted the government buy it, so it would feel the pain of paying big bikkies for something that would probably finish up as railway tracks - but I bet it didn't.

Could you point out where I used the term "'well thought out'" in regard to that legislation? If I'm deranged it might be because I cannot imagine that I would have used that term for this stuff and can't see in the posts that I did.

Poverty is probably the main factor in the Brazil murder rate but I think you're dribbling a bibful asserting theere is no relationship between gun control and murders. I would take your bait but I should be wrapping presents.

Ray, the only thing I could say on your points is that constitutions are not necessarily handed down on tablets from God, they are the basis for running things until enough people agree they should be altered.

Do you remember the Constitutional amendment that brought in prohibition? It was eventually seen as a dumb idea, so another amendment was brought in to undo it.

Happy Christmas, everyone!

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
....Pretty much all murders are bad - killings that are defensible usually have different labels. For all that, 'mass murders' are one of the worst kinds of homicide because they involve multiple innocent victims and those victims are mostly without any connection to the perpetrator Illegal and immoral as murders tend to be, most involve some offence having been given to the murderer, accept for the drive-by killing, also a self-loader speciality.

"Mass murders" with guns may be rare compared with your 'normal murders' but we had something like 17 within a couple of decades before 1996 and they seem to occur monthly in the US. Don't you think it would be nice if you could send your kids to kindergarten or the cinema without worrying about such things?

A fact check might be necessary SM338:

Australia had 14 mass shootings between 1964 and 2014, only 4 of which were "public mass shootings" where the victims were unknown to the perpetrator. The Hunt family murder suicide of 2014, where Geoff Hunt shot his wife and three children and finally himself, is typical of the pre '96 "mass shooting" pattern.

As for the evil self loaders, before Port Arthur, the worst mass shooting was not committed with a high-powered semi-automatic weapon, but with a “single shot” .22-calibre bolt-action rifle - Bartholomew in SA in 1971 http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/...720d1979bdddf6714e22

Typically mass shootings involve the wife and kids. John Howard cannot claim responsibility for the reduction in household size since 1996 (i.e., people having fewer children), it was reducing since 1961 according to ABS data https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/d..._2012/facssheet6.pdf. If you are aware of this trend and cherry pick the definition of mass shootings to be 5 or more killed as the anti-gun activists now do (despite the long-standing definition of 4 or more killed, which was also the measure historically used by the NHMP) you can continue to proclaim Howards gun laws are wonderful.

I'll have to defer to your microscopic knowledge of these matters, GBE - Rupert's money wall stopped me getting into the story, and I'd rather be thrown into a hot vat of pitch than subscribe to his BS.

I have not counted these attrocities myself but 17 is a number often quoted IIRC. I'm afraid there's too much going on today to ruin it with the kind of research a definitive rebuttal would require.

As I have said many times, it was the mystique of the assault rifle that caused much of the trouble. Yes, massacres can be done with much less fire power. Film buffs might recall Sergeant York, the American soldier who managed to kill about 29 German soldiers in one morning or afternoon in WWI. They were all armed, one would assume, and he only had a Model 17 Enfield - a great rifle but not one known for its reloading speed. I also recall a story of some maniac with a machete who killed about a dozen people, maybe in Malaysia. Add to these the terrorists and nutters in motor vehicles and the history of bombings, and it is obvious mass murder can be done in myriad ways.

Does this mean governments have no right to try to stop the carnage? Is it ridiculous to eliminate some obvious means when news of it makes the same sort of thing even more likely to be used in the future?

Again, you're accepting the false premise that the 96 laws "stopped" these events - when there is no evidence to back that up, given how incredibly rare such events were even pre-96.

In terms of "eliminating some obvious means" there are two major problems with your opinion.

The first is that, if you're talking about public mass shootings, then all four of those occurred within a 10 year period, 1987-1996. If banning semi-autos was responsible for "stopping" those events, perhaps you can explain why we didn't have public mass shootings before the mid 1980s despite widespread availability of semi-autos and far less restrictive licensing?

The second problem with your argument is that if you look at the 14 mass shootings over that 50 years, they involved all kinds of different firearms including ones still commonly owned under Cat A and B licenses. So this tells us pretty clearly that any type of firearm can be - and has been - used in a mass shooting.

Agree with the GBE, the stats. are clear.

The 96 ban was just a feel good measure for the uninformed
antis!!!

There have been mass murders since then, I recall one in Cairns where a women killed
5or 6people from her own family with a Knife!!!.

There is no gun control that will stop insane acts.

Nick

I'll be the last person on the face of the Earth to defend Howards 1996 decision to reclaim certain firearm, but some on this thread make it sound as if Australia has the monopoly on stupid politician decisions effecting hunters and shooters !

Yeh right !!!!!!!!

Go champ.

Mad husbands (and Medea-syndrome women) killing spouses and kids are nothing new to the world and will not stop while there are knives in the drawer and ponds beside the roads. Sorry if I gave the impression I think all 'mass murder' of strangers has been stopped forever here. Some turkey will eventually let loose again - and I'm afraid he will use a kind of rifle we value greatly for sambar hunting. (That risk is increased by the greed of one Qld gunshop that specialises in big magazines and advertises them monthly.)

I think much of the reason we didn't have such bloodfests as Hoddle Street and Port Arthur much before 1987 was, first, because those pistol-gripped assault rifles had previously been rarer here; secondly, action movies had been a little more restrained (and the 'Peacemakers' of Laremy were restricted) until Rambo, and shoot-em-up computer games were in their infancy. There is also the copy-cat aspect, of course. When one maniac gets his name in papers with an act like that, don't be surprised if some other loser sees a way to go down in history for himself.

The Queen Street murderer was a slightly different kettle of fish; just mad and with a vendetta. He had an earlier generation of military semi-auto but was seemingly so ignorant of the technology he thought it was a repeater - and pulled the bolt back after every shot. This one could have been Johnny's justification for banning all self-loaders.

So, nothing is ever over but there has definitely been a pause in the bigger-number mass murders we saw here last century. Having watched the YouTube of the guy shooting a Smelly at lightning speed, it is obvious great carnage can be inflicted with almost any single gun, except, possibly, muzzle-loading rifles.
With luck the maniacs haven't seen that one, but are still getting off on their blood-thirsty computer games.

Can anyone in Australia with clean record buy allowed long and short guns, or is it like Europe, you have to prove you need one, i.e., hunting or sport proven qualifications?

In most states long arms are reasonably easy to qualify for but some states have 28-day waiting times for acquisition, to let any angry person think about their purposes for a while.

Pistols can also be got for target shooting, or by certain security workers, but self-defence is not accepted as reason for owning any private gun, in my state at least, and handguns are not to be used in hunting. The licensing requirements for handguns are more stringent than for rifles and shotguns.

Some states may still/now allow farmers to carry pistols around their properties, but not in Victoria, as far as I know.

I had an assault rifle that I had to hand in during the buy back.

I wish I was still allowed to have it, but understand why I'm not.


Those who can demonstrate a reason to own an assault rifle for pest destruction can have one.

Those who are active members of a club, can own handguns.

It's pretty easy to own a target or hunting rifle as long as you have the ability to secure them, and aren't a law breaker.

I support American citizens right to have and bear arms as they are allowed in their constitution.


If the laws in Australia stay as they are now, I think they strike a pretty fair compromise between the the needs of recreation shooters, farmers, and the safety of the general public, and the police.

That's my opinion

John

I have to admit, John, I'd sold my only self-loader years before for unrelated reasons, so didn't have to suffer any personal loss.

Believe it or not, I have some sympathy with the Americans, too, knowing that for many anti-gun and anti-hunting campaigners it is as much a zero-sum game as it is for the NRA.

The US founding fathers had vision, too, in that they were on one hand making provision for a citizen army without a constant strain on the national budget and, on the other, recognising that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

You only have to look around the world this year to see that bad leaders are far from a thing of the past.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
What a comforting term that is, Karl: 'normal murders'!

Thanks I have to break things down for some folks to grasp contexts.

quote:

Unfortunately, I'm finding your argument a little fuzzy, in a different way, but I'll give it a go.

Well let me help you out some.

You are a gunowner supporting removal of certain gun types. You will be using the same arguments anti's use to ban guns in general.

Its a very basic flow from here.

You will emotionalise the issue of assault rifles and mass murders, despite them being a low statistic.

You will present arguments an 'assault rifle ' is somehow more like to produce criminals in its ownership- the mind control aspect of owning a gun, (which anti's apply to all guns btw)

Support banning firearms types in order to stop criminals who don't listen to laws.

Use the USA as an example despite some countries with 6x the murder rate having less access to guns/

Then you will slip sideways into tangents about the safety of children or adults, despite drowning, car accidents, poisoning, riding motorbikes on farms, even falling off horses being a larger fatality risk.

All of which you do not support banning for some unknown reason.

Lets see how we go.

quote:

Pretty much all murders are bad - killings that are defensible usually have different labels. For all that, 'mass murders' are one of the worst kinds of homicide because they involve multiple innocent victims and those victims are mostly without any connection to the perpetrator.

No the worst kind of homicide which has the greatest impact on innocents and families is homicides making up the greatest number.
By definition.

And mass murders is not it.It is one of the least likely and lowest contributing statistic to murder, however makes a great political tool for the government, Anti's, and the more stupid of gunowners seeking to ban their own lifestyle.

quote:

Illegal and immoral as murders tend to be, most involve some offence having been given to the murderer, accept for the drive-by killing, also a self-loader speciality.

Drive bys, another low end statistic. Pulling out the big ticket items here.

quote:

"Mass murders" with guns may be rare compared with your 'normal murders'

Correct, so lets not remove firearms contributing to low murder statistics.

Lets keep the majority of gunowners enjoying their SKK's and SKS's and spend the money on something that can actually save major lives, like alchoholism, fighting the meth epidemic, limiting the speed of cars which have absolutely no purpose to drive over the speed of 110kmhr?

Is the math becoming less fuzzy for you now?

quote:

but we had something like 17 within a couple of decades before 1996 and they seem to occur monthly in the US. Don't you think it would be nice if you could send your kids to kindergarten or the cinema without worrying about such things?

I think it would be even nicer for my kids if they could grow up with the same freedoms I did, and not get shot up on the way to the cinemas. I am more interested in improving Australias culture, than blaming inanimate objects.

quote:

Anyway, it is not true that all the guns handed in were melted down. Some went into museums and some were sold overseas. I know of one guy who was given the option of disposing of his Midas Grade Browning but he insisted the government buy it, so it would feel the pain of paying big bikkies for something that would probably finish up as railway tracks - but I bet it didn't.

You accuse me of being fuzzy. The discussion if you haven't been keeping up with it is removal of firearm types from people, not what happens to them once they have been removed.

quote:

Could you point out where I used the term "'well thought out'" in regard to that legislation? If I'm deranged it might be because I cannot imagine that I would have used that term for this stuff and can't see in the posts that I did.

Its called para-phrasing. Here was your term. "I'm inclined to think the gun buy-back was one of the few good things John Howard did".

Was this you or some other clown saying anything about the biggest waste of money in Australian history targeting a low statistic problem was a good idea?

quote:

Poverty is probably the main factor in the Brazil murder rate but I think you're dribbling a bibful asserting theere is no relationship between gun control and murders. I would take your bait but I should be wrapping presents.

Don't let disturbing facts proving no correlation from murder to gun ownership put you off, old son. You happily provided the bait during the rest of your long diatribe.

I'll give you a hint regarding Brazil. Its not poverty its culture.

Australian culture in the old days. Poor as Brazil, yet you could buy explosives over the counter( the greatest weapon of mass murder), the army would auction off its own firearms in big warehouse sales. Terrorist attacks, explosions once a week, young school age teens doing driveby's, more crime than the US? Nil.

The reason is laws are a small part of what keeps people behaving. (culture, food sources, politics, healthy challenges etc). Good country with few laws does a lot better than a rich country with excessive laws(like an arab oil state).

And if one area gets out of whack(cultural decline, values) adding to another area( legislation) has limited usefulness.

But its an easy option for governments since writing a few pages is a lot easier than re-engineering a good society.

This is why, while I agree laws are an important part of society, strict gun laws are a complete waste of time.

Removing a firearm type responsible for less deaths than "electrocution by kitchen appliance" just to stop some "computer game playing kids"( another modern phenomenon by the way) from choosing it is insanity.

Well, Karl of various locations, I'm afraid the fuzziness of your arguments is not receding much but I'm afraid the effort needed to rebut them all would be too boring to bother with.

I will say, though, that in clear thinking, you can't use quotes to represent paraphrasing.

You accuse me of writing a long diatribe and yet your latest epistle is several times longer than the longest of mine.

I have no problem with responsible governments trying to lessen dangers to its people whenever they are perceived. Our state government was the first in the world to mandate use of seatbelts in cars; some people screamed murder but (with no mention in the Constitution) the law survived and helped reduce the road toll by about 80% in the years since. Many farmers were being killed by tractors rolling on them, so safety cages were made compulsory. Australia was the first country to ban branding on cigarette packets; this worked and the tobacco companies went berserk (trying to assert it broke trade agreements), but the law remains and is being copied by other countries now.

You mention alcoholism and, yes, it is a serious problem in most western countries. You might be surprised to know that many people in Australia and other places think the American minimum drinking age of 21 is an unfair infringement of young adults' rights - when 18 is a more-usual one. In truth, 21 is probably is a good idea, because it dislocates the drinking age with when kids can get driver's licences. As I mentioned earlier, though, prohibition is not always a good idea, as your Constitutional amendments record.

Tell me, Karl, do you think everyone should be allowed to own Uzis, M60 machine guns, bazookas and ICBMs?

I'm not that interested in stats for this discussion. The loss of freedom was based on a knee jerk reaction. If society kerps removing all freedom of choice for the 1% where does that get us?

Prohibition?
Steven Conroy failed internet censorship?
Bollards through every city as a symbol of multiculturalism failure?
3km over the speed limit on a 3 lane motorway with a BS "safety cameras " giving me a whopping fine to save lives?

Deviant behaviour by less than 0.000001% of the population

I would hoped I pay taxes to government to remove other peoples' freedom, not to remove mine because of what somebody else did.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
Well, Karl of various locations,

I see it as " WELL KARL OF SOUND MIND"
As Karl sums it up ok to me.

My two bob is that any removal of any firearm is simply the start of the long process of removal of the lot.. IE the auto`s are gone? What can we ban next?

Gun control isnt about guns - its simply about control. Once guns are gone they will move on to something else - chainsaws ? Motorcycles ? Kitchen knives ?