Just a few days ago President Obama, in an interview, stated his greatest frustration was his (and Congress') failure to get any new gun control laws passed.

He attributed school shootings and other mass murders to Americans' ability to, in his words, "stockpile thousands of rounds of ammunition."

In addressing his solution to the "gun problem" (not, of course, the deranged shooter problem), President Obama held up Australia's gun laws as an example of a successful solution to gun violence.

What say you, people of Australia (and New Zealand)? Should the U.S. follow your government's solution to mass murders?

Of course, we have this pesky thing called the 2nd Amendment that might make it more difficult for our government to unilaterally outlaw certain types of firearms or otherwise restrict ownership of guns and ammo, but Obama has been known to--in the opinion of many--circumvent the US Constitution with Executive Orders. So who knows?

But my question to you is this: was the loss of your privileges in firearm ownership worth the price you paid to live in a "safer" country? I would seriously be interested to know if hunters, competitive shooters and other participants in the shooting sports feel Australia did the right thing, even if some (or many) honest, law-abiding people had to give up at least a part of what they owned and enjoyed?

Thanks for your responses--

Several months after their gun laws went into effect I spent some time with an Australian Police Officer.

He told me that crime against citizens went way up, especiallly home invasions. He said they had gone up two or three hundred percent.

NE,

I direct you to my post in the "what part of shall not infringe..........." topic......so that I don't repeat myself.

Basically, to address your question, firearm related crime was dropping well before the buybacks, both semi auto longguns and pistols over .38 and a barrel length shorter than 4" (???) or a mag capacity of over 10 shots.

Australia has never had many mass murders thankfully.

Port Arthur was just an opportunity for John Howard to implement gun laws that none of the political parties had the guts to bring in. He bought it in while everyone was horrified about it and he thought he had public support to do it.

We all knew it would just cause the ordinary shooter, who doesn't shoot up the populace, inconvenience. It cost some of the military rifle shooters their match, cost the government an estimated $750m for absoutely no benefit.

$750m that could have been spent on roads, police, hospitals and schools.

I never owned any "assault rifles", just a good Winchester Super X and my old IPSC Colt.......lost to the buybacks, but can see no harm in people owning these things as long as they behave themselves.

No I don't think the loss of this type of firearm has been of any benefit to our society. Nobody can provide credible data to prove that the buy backs/stricter gunlaws alone have done a damn thing to prevent firearm related crime.

They deprived shooters of their favourite "duckamatics", IPSC pistols and good fast shooting high capacity pig guns and just wasted alot of money that we needed spent on esential services.

The US has some serious problems.

Canada has much higher per capita gun ownership - like us in NZ. So why does the US have such high gun crime?

The US also has some strange laws like "stand your ground" etc. So the psyche is that you are allowed to shoot and kill someone! It does not have to be an extreme case of provocation.

Why not walk away and call the police etc.???? Why the macho attitude of engaging / confronting someone?

This is a cultural issue in the US and has nothing really to do with gun control laws.

G'Day Fella's,

From what I have seen of your President, Borat O'Bongo, he also appears to be a Political Animal!
Just like our PM at the time, John Winston Howard!!!

God help the LAFO's in the US, if this STOOGE gets his way with gun laws!

Doh!
Homer

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
The US has some serious problems.

Canada has much higher per capita gun ownership - like us in NZ. So why does the US have such high gun crime?

The US also has some strange laws like "stand your ground" etc. So the psyche is that you are allowed to shoot and kill someone! It does not have to be an extreme case of provocation.

Why not walk away and call the police etc.???? Why the macho attitude of engaging / confronting someone?

This is a cultural issue in the US and has nothing really to do with gun control laws.

Naki,

i lived in Europe were the gun laws are really strict and now i live in Canada and i wish soon will get a stand the ground policy.

you can not wait all the time for the cavalry to come. trust me.

gun crimes in the USA are very often criminal against civilian or other criminal not a civilian killing another one.

and on another note gun control is not about gun but about control and taking away the gun from legal gun owners if you dont think so good on you but that is what will happen at the end ....

Conspiracy theories asside I could never understand as to who will benefit from the dissarmament of the population.

Given that gun related crime is still an anomaly. In that it's incidence, given population numbers, is very rare.

Yes we too have reports of shootings most mornings on the television.........but hey 2 people may have done the shooting and that leaves the balance of 22,000,000 who didn't shoot anyone that night.

I believe the passion to disarm the populace is a misguided ignorant phobia completely ignorant of the actual facts. I believe it's based on emotion and a "Disneyland/Mouseketeers" belief that if the guns are gone everyone will play nice dancing around singing happy happy songs.

No matter what the activity if you involve enough people a certain number of them will die.

When we have a maximum speed limit of 20km/hour (or whatever that is in mph) and a zero blood alcohol level, driving on six lane new highways a certain percentage of people will still die !!!!! But a hell of a lot of people will not!! While these deaths are tragic, and every sensible measure should be taken to avoid them, they are to an extent inevitable.

I'm not saying that we should stop trying to prevent these deaths. But intelect and facts should be used to endeavour to solve the problem.

The government is using the people's funds to endeavour to solve the issue so all available credible information should be used in order to address the problem. The issues affect people's lives so the individuals personal phobias/opinions should be removed from the equation.

The issue of Firearm related crime has been studied to death. So the information is out there. If "More guns, Less Crime" is the truth (and I'm not questioning you Messrs Lott and Mustad) then why aren't more criminals shot in the act by honest armed citizens ??? Perhaps they are but it doesn't suit the press to report this. If it doesn't suit media to report the truth then what is their agenda ???

No anti gunner has ever been able to produce credible studies.....that have withstood the scrutiny of the scientific community...to support their theory. The progun lobby seems to be able to provide credible evidence that "More guns, Less crime" is the facts of the matter.

Then to who's advantage is it to ignore the facts while using the public purse to pursue failing strategies ????

More importantly what is the answer to reducing Firearm Related Crime ???

End of Rant !!!

I find the timing of this article very handy.

http://www.afr.com/p/opinion/t...CJDQFe1NpKA517oJL8nM

quote:

Originally posted by Nitro Express:

. . . But my question to you is this: was the loss of your privileges in firearm ownership worth the price you paid to live in a "safer" country? I would seriously be interested to know if hunters, competitive shooters and other participants in the shooting sports feel Australia did the right thing, even if some (or many) honest, law-abiding people had to give up at least a part of what they owned and enjoyed?

Thanks for your responses--

Well, in our state of Victoria, we had already had some mass murders in the 1980s and the government had banned assault rifles with pistol grips. I think that was enough - there were no more of these massacres after 1987.

John Howard then went too far nearly 10 years later, I think, in banning all self-loading guns and rifles and pump-action shotguns nationally after Port Arthur. As I've said elsewhere, it appears to be access to assault rifles that is the key to these outrages, the most essential element needed to make a maniac think he is Rambo.

Massacres with handguns may appeal to a different kind of lunatic, who simply sees a gun as a means to an end, though. None have occurred here because pistols have been tightly regulated since the 1920s. I've taken my sons to shoot with them a couple of times but I don't feel the need to own any because it would require me to shoot at the club every fortnight, whether I wanted to or not.

Despite John Howard's laws possibly unleashing the mass arrival of pistols for criminals deprived of pea-rifles to cut down, I still feel safe here. The criminals mostly shoot each other but at a rate that would hardly get on the graph in the US.

Those nutters who go out and murder multiple strangers for no real reason tend to be different. Something in their make-up makes dirtying their hands to get the guns beforehand beneath their dignity. So, if they can't get them legally, they don't bother - or haven't so far.

Was the loss of privileges worth the cost? I had not owned so much as a .22 self-loader for many years but the answer might even be beyond those who did lose guns. Perhaps you could ask Walter Mikac, who lost his wife and two small daughters at Port Arthur.

WHy does the gun crime rate show so high in the U.S.? Four words: Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, and New Orleans. All of these cities have had a Democratic controlled (stranglehold would be a better word) government for decades. There governments have created in their core areas dangerous cesspools of corruption where living is dangerous.

Sambarman,

If Walter Mikac had lost his wife and kids due to the action of a suicidal bus driver on the way to a tour of Port Arthur would he now be advocating the banning of buses ?? Though the "weapon" is registered and the "perpetrator" is licensed.

When the next mass shooting occurs in Australia and they use an "assault rifle" will the government ban them again ???

Many "assault rifles" are shown on the news that are seized as a result of raids on criminals and yet we have had very few mass murders using firearms.

I don't think John Howard's gun laws had anything to do with the illegal importation of handguns. They were being imported prior to his gunlaws and still are being imported illegally.

Pictures on the evening news will also demonstrate that the criminals have not been deprived of pea rifles to be cut down.

I had many friends who used to shoot Service Rifle type matches, prior to the Howard gun laws, who did not feel the need to go "Rambo" just because of the possession of such a firearm.

Yes the people who commit these crimes are mentally deranged......even if temporarily.

I think, if they do these things for their "15 minutes of fame" then, the crime needs to be reported as the act of an insane deficient person and the discredit must be fully applied. It may well stop some other idiot doing it.

It is very difficult to protect against someone who is willing to spend their life in the commission of a crime. You can't negotiate with them and you can't threaten them as they are not rational and don't fear retribution.

I am a believer in the NRA's (forgive me if the quote is not theirs) belief of "the only thing that will stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun".

If the U.S. citizens are all carrying handguns, as our news reports would have you believe, why aren't more of these idiots shot in the act of these mass shootings ???

Do not misconstrue this comment to mean that I have any faith in the media to report the truth.

What is the solution ?????

Well twobob...
I think more people die in car accidents than gun accidents, too, but the community has a greater need for transport than guns, so no one ever suggests banning cars, either. Also, there's no accounting for suicidal pilots who have allegedly taken plane loads of people with them.

However, I think your comparison is a false analogy because buses are demonstrably useful in everyday civil life, while assault rifles in the hands of civilians are much less so.

When, if, another mass murder occurs in Australia using an assault rifle, you can be sure it will be the subject of legal inquiry. But unless it is perpetrated by someone with the C(?) licence, how could they be banned again? I dread that next time it may involve a certain kind of rifle that we find very useful for sambar hunting.

Most of the guns police seize on drug raids are so boring I would not keep space for them in my safe. But, as I said, career criminals tend to be different psychologically from mass murderers, so the odd assault rifle they may possess is a side issue.

John Howard would be happy to hear you don't think there was any downside to his law, and I can't prove there was. All I remember was seeing a lot of cut-down .22 autos confiscated from crims in those days and that this sort of thing seems to have been replaced with real pistols now. Since the law gave the impetus to make handguns a serious smuggling enterprise, I think crooks have taken them to (near) their hearts, because they are so much sexier and more portable, and the fashion has really taken off.

Of course having an assault rifle does not turn every shooter into a homicidal maniac. We are told that the citizen militia of Switzerland requires many people to keep such weapons at their house. While this has not led to a murder rate anywhere near that of the US or RSA, it is still much higher than in Australia, and did figure in one borderline mass murder IIRC.

I have heard a lot of gun crimes are thwarted in America by citizens carrying a gun of their own and that in some parts citizens are encouraged to carry pistols for this purpose, with positive results.

It is not a widespread situation, though, and has not stopped the US being the mass-murder centre of the world. While it might work if adopted across the country, I would fear a return to 'Old West' confrontations based on bad tempers, 'honor' and general nuttiness, which might far outweigh the beneficial effects.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
The US has some serious problems.

Canada has much higher per capita gun ownership - like us in NZ. So why does the US have such high gun crime?

The US also has some strange laws like "stand your ground" etc. So the psyche is that you are allowed to shoot and kill someone! It does not have to be an extreme case of provocation.

Why not walk away and call the police etc.???? Why the macho attitude of engaging / confronting someone?

This is a cultural issue in the US and has nothing really to do with gun control laws.

That kind of attitude right there above is what breeds soldiers of the likes of those in the Iraqi Army. Don't hold your ground. Throw up your hands and run...hoping someone else will cover your backside!

Sambarman,

When you start to start quoting community's greater need and demonstrating need for assault rifles you start to sound like a politician explaining away why they took these things away.

It's exactly what they want to hear.

I never had anything that came into the "assault rifle" category. Never wanted one. But I do not question someone's right to own one if they want one as long as they behave themselves with it. If they've honestly earned the money to buy it then it's up to them how they spend the money. It's not my right to tell them what they "need".

In saying that "I dread that next time it may involve a certain kind of rifle that we find very useful for sambar hunting" you're displaying the kind of emotive/divided stance that the politicians love. Are you saying it's alright to ban the guns that you don't want ??? If we allow that attitude to proliferate you can be sure that the anti gun politicians will eventually get around to banning something you have and then will you expect support from shooters who have already suffered from bans. Shooters whose rights you didn't support because they didn't have firearms that you didn't deem "useful for sambar hunting" ???

As to the psycology of mass murderers vs career criminals I'll leave comment to the psycologists. I'll not try to "split those hairs".

I've reread my post and can see nowhere where "John Howard would be happy to hear you don't thing there was any downside to his law......". My meaning is that his laws where ineffectual in solving firearm related crime, while costing a hell of a lot of public money and inconveniencing the law abiding types.

Your analogy of a "wild west" situation is exactly what the "antis" sprook but the facts disprove.

Take a look at this presentation:

http://visual.ly/gun-crimes-pl...ven-gun-sales-rise-0

I'm trying to keep the emotion out of this arguament that's where the confusion/division enters into the debate. We have the facts about the innefectiveness of gun control but the decisions continue to be based on emotions.

Twobob,
sorry mate, your efforts to keep emotion out of it aren't succeeding. While your first post was OK, in the last one the argument seems to be unravelling a bit.

Your misquote makes me sound like Desi Arnaz. If you don't want to give the politicians any free kicks against us, perhaps you could tidy up the spelling so as not to reinforce their belief that we are idiots who can't even be trusted with a pen, let alone a gun.

Your assertion that I didn't support the rights of certain shooters is wrong at least in tense: I marched with the shooting fraternity in 1996 and wrote letters condemning the government's actions IIRC.

My comment about John Howard being happy referred to your refuting my belief that banning semi-auto .22 rifles added a critical mass that led to a sudden proliferation of commercial pistols.

You begrudge me even a comment about sambar rifles, as though the mention says I don't care about any other aspect of shooting sports. I don't know how you work that out but it reminds me of the logic that plays well in Egyptian court rooms at the moment.

But do I think all firearms are worth defending equally as sporting goods? Well, no. Though they are available in some parts of America, I don't think civilians should have easy access to sub-machineguns, even if they are arguably Constitutional successors to the Brown Bess.

Speaking of machineguns, I find the graphs in your YouTube presentation too slick by half. The figures represented may be correct but, even when pausing the rapid-fire graphs, I could see no attributions offered.

Though the gloves are off in your corner, in an effort to be even-handed I have given gun ownership support wherever deserved.

And here is another one. I have also seen statistics showing that gun homicides were dropping in Australia even before John Howard's laws. I can't be sure why that is, either, but suggest it may have something to do with society becoming less violent (at least until ice arrived). That it may also have occurred despite increasing numbers of guns in the community, could have something to do with affluence putting more arms into the hands of committed shooters, while continual restrictions on licensing and hunting opportunities whittled away the number of casual gun owners.

Whatever part those statistical trends have had, mass murders with firearms continue in the USA but, for some reason, we have had no more in Australia since 1996. Once more, I do not like John Howard and hate almost everything he ever did - he just got lucky on this one.

Sambarman,

That my opinion is different to yours does not make it wrong.......nor does it make it right.......just different.

My analogy of the suicidal bus driver is in order to display that any tool can become a weapon in the wrong hands.

My position on the issue is that I'm more interested in preventing mass shootings than having them "be the subject of a legal inquiry" after the fact.

My point was that someone who would perpetrate such a crime does not obey the firearms laws therefore laws will not prevent such an act.

What will the politicians do when they find that their laws did not work ???.....they will make tougher laws ....that the criminal will not obey either. This results in unnecessary impositions on the ordinary person without solving the problem. And this will happen at the expense of the public purse.

I agree with you regarding the lack of quality of the firearms that are seized from criminals. They usually are cheap rubbish.

I also marched against the 1996 gun laws along with 8,500 (IIRC) people in Brisbane. I was proud to be associated with these people as they behaved themselves far better than some of the "rabble" I've seen demonstrating.

I've written to many politicians and editors and hold membership to many shooting organisations. But I will not dictate to any other shooter what they "need". Their "needs" differ to mine but that does not make them wrong.

When you refer to mass murders using an assault rifle and then say "I dread that next time it may involve a certain kind of rifle that we find very useful for sambar hunting" I deduce that your view is that as long as the government aren't banning "a certain kind of rifle that we find very useful for sambar hunting" that thats alright.

I don't know what has caused the increase of use of handguns in crime. What I do know is that although "pistols have been tightly regulated since the 1920s." they continue to be used in crime here. So the existing law is not working.

It is irrelevant whether you or I want to own a particular type of firearm what I am saying is that a person of proper character should be able to own one.......as long as they commit no crime with it.

Hell it's legal to own a car that will accomplish speeds of 300kph but it's not legal, in most jurisdictions, to exceed 100kph....but you won't find me telling a person they can't buy a Ferrari.

"Those nutters who go out and murder multiple strangers for no real reason tend to be different." Thankfully yes !!!. We are dealing with a tiny percentage of the populace.

"Something in their make-up makes dirtying their hands to get the guns beforehand beneath their dignity. So, if they can't get them legally, they don't bother - or haven't so far" ........ I wish Martin Bryant had chosen not to bother getting the guns beforehand.

I cannot begin to understand the loss that Walter Mikac has suffered. It must be immense. I can understand that he probably has a dim view of firearms.

But what I am after here is how do we prevent this kind of thing happening again.

Could somebody please direct me to the spell check and Thesaurus I am damaging the delicate sensibilities of the "higher brows".

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
The US also has some strange laws like "stand your ground" etc. So the psyche is that you are allowed to shoot and kill someone!
....Why not walk away and call the police etc.???? Why the macho attitude of engaging / confronting someone?

Nothing wrong with being able to rightfully defend yourself-protect a life, with a firearm.
However there are a small portion of trigger happy idiot civilians who think they can rightfully
blast at anyone on their property, for just the slightest reason.

quote:

Originally posted by twobobbwana:


Port Arthur was just an opportunity for John Howard to implement gun laws that none of the political parties had the guts to bring in. He bought it in while everyone was horrified about it and he thought he had public support to do it.

In interview on Sydney radio station 2GB PM John howard said,
"We will find any means we can to further restrict them because I hate guns...
ordinary citizens should not have weapons. We do not want the American disease imported into Australia."

mind you this came from a politicaly conservative party, like the Republicans in America.

Shooters applied to join Howards political party, in an attempt to influence the government, but the conservative party barred them from
membership. A court action by 500 shooters seeking admission to membership eventually failed in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

Prez. GWB said he considered Prime minister Howard a good man and a good friend.

Prez. GWB is not on record for rebuking Howards neg. attitude toward firearms.

quote:

Originally posted by twobobbwana:
Sambarman,

That my opinion is different to yours does not make it wrong.......nor does it make it right.......just different.

Fair enough, as with my Liberal-voting hunting mates, on some matters we'll never see eye to eye.

My reference to sambar hunting was not intended to suggest that I have no interest in anyone else's shooting interests but to show that I am not immune to the need for fast-shooting rifles. I would have liked a BAR in .338 magnum, even better one converted to .458, but never got around to getting one. In fact I was designing a self-loading shotgun, intended to have the handling and utility of a Purdey game gun, in the mid '90s, so did have some skin in the game.

Martin Bryant's monstrous act occurred before the new laws, of course, so I include him in the profile of game-playing nutters who cast their animosities into a deluded Rambo scenario. Having legal access to assault rifles, he fitted the mould.

As Trax shows, John Howard's outlook was two or three planets farther out than any differences between you and me. His laws would never work in America because of historical, racial and geographical reasons, but by mere chance they seem to have worked here.

PS: Though many Ferraris and illegal pistols may have owners in common, I can't see too many sports cars mowing down 35 people - unless they come across the said suicidal bus driver.

But you have brought me back to another theme, that of the image of certain consumer durables causing even ostensibly sane people to behave in crazy ways. When I was young I came to own an Alfa Romeo GTV without even hankering after one. It was a bit old and sick but it still predicated my driving style. And because I'd been told not to drive it over 3000 revs when cold or under 3000 revs when warm (to keep the oil pressure up), and thought it made sense to use all the gears, all country trips were driven at 75mph or more. That idiocy was not actually illegal in those days, unless you had an accident, after which they could charge you with unsafe driving. Hopefully, when my boys get their own cars they'll buy 4WDs. They may not be safe but at least the image does not engender madness.

The fact is in the US where we can "fairly" obtain a CCW permit and thousands do. Crime rates drop quite drastically.

The media hype's every killing whether mass or not so much you outsiders tend to believe there's a hell of a lot more of it going on over here than actually does. Even one is way too many of course.

Those several shootings that have been stopped by CCW folks are never reported in the media. That's why you never hear of it.

I personally have a permit and carry a pistol most of the time, yes even in my own home such as right now in fact. Mostly to be able to protect myself from multiples, or home invasions which the past few years has quite often taken place here in my small town.

Some folks, and I take it Sambarman is one, don't believe a person should defend themselves. That's the big bullshit opinion the anti's try to smother folks with.
A question: Sambarman: If someone walked up and punched you in the face, would you turn n run? OR fight back?

George

George,
sorry to hear things are that scary where you are.

Because self-defence is not even a legal reason to own a firearm here, and we are required to keep any we do own locked up away from the ammo (also to be locked up), I do as the law specifies.

Not that I obsess about the matter, but I'm inclined to think the fence is the best defence: because intruders would almost always have the drop on me, I put my trust in door locks and not looking too prosperous.

As to the situation of being punched in the face, well, that might depend on the size of the assailant and if someone would hold my glasses.

However, as one who goes to church and buys the bag, hopefully, I'd do as the Good Book says: turn the other cheek.

Sure sounds like my daughter has some matching company since she moved to Melbourne.
Wish you well, though your glasses very likely would be busted and on the ground.
George

Hopefully, your daughter will be safe and happy here, George, in the company of people brave enough to walk around without feeling they need a gun on their hip.

I used to walk about a mile home from the station every work night for many years, sometimes at 1am, without feeling vulnerable. I did see drug dealers negotiating once. Another evening I saw a man with a hatchet chasing a woman around a pharmacy. Since he wasn't real big, I took it off him. Glad I couldn't shoot him, though, because in the end it turned out he was the victim. The woman had robbed him at knifepoint and when she got out, he found the tomahawk in the trunk and chased her up the street - to get his credit card back, if you believe it.

In Eastern Europe someone invades your home and you hurt them or kill them and you get prosecuted
Here in Mt, someone invades your home ... Bam he is dead, it was his choice.
Crime is a choice and as all people in this world know, you live or die by your choices...
Assault rifle is anything you assault someone with so the name is just political pandering.
btw Sambarman, from what you have been putting on, you are not better than any other Do gooder out there and you are the problem not the solution.
For all you guys down under, if you believe in gun control, you are simply brainwashed and misguided.

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
.. Another evening I saw a man with a hatchet chasing a woman around a pharmacy. Since he wasn't real big, I took it off him. Glad I couldn't shoot him, though,
because in the end it turned out he was the victim. The woman had robbed him at knifepoint and when she got out, he found the tomahawk in the trunk and chased her up the street
- to get his credit card back, if you believe it.

If police had arrived on the scene and the man then refused to lay down his tomahawk,
they would then consider it justifiably within their duty, to fire on the man to prevent him inflicting any harm to anyone.
Unlikely any court in the land would find the police guilty of any wrong doing.
Had you shot the man with your personal carry weapon, before police arrived, you would have a much harder time than the police,
when attempting to defend yourself in court over your actions.

The argument for Australian citizen gun ownership is not being helped by redneck idiots like farmer Ian Robert Turnbull,
who recently shot dead a gov. land environment officer.

The arrested man claims he was pushed to the edge because of the harrasement he was receiving from such gov. officers.

Which makes it sound like the gov. officer was on that farmers private land when the tragic incident took place.

However, Police allege that the gov. officer was on another job related task not related to Turnbulls property,
when Turnbull then took it upon himself to drive to that location at Talga Lane and then shoot the gov. officer dead - through the back.

Some country areas can be a bit dinga-ding-dingding but I don't know whether remote locations sometimes attract strange people or if the isolation makes them strange.

I was duckshooting along a stream about once when a farmer came down to the other side and menaced me with an M1 carbine. I can't recall his exact words but he threatened to shoot me if I did not bugger off from near his horse paddock. (Skittish as they were, apparently his mounts were not spooked by .30 carbine fire.)

The duckshooting spot had been arranged by a friend of my father's, whom I'd assumed had got the appropriate permission, but I was not going to contest things with this other dude, even though I understood then that his rifle had been banned in Victoria. (Looking at the time scale now, I'm not sure that military self-loaders without pistol-type grips were already illegal, however.)

The problem is such village idiot rednecks consider themselves a law all unto themselves.

We were once in state forrest with full legal permission and all the appropriate valid permits in hand to hunt the area.
When a vehicle overtook us on the forrest track, then blocked our path with their vehicle and got out brandishing their guns
as they approached our vehicle.
IT turns out they were from bordering private properties, taking it upon themselves to patrol the gov. state forrest, to determine
who they believe should be there and who should not........I tell you this without a word of exaggeration regarding the event.

quote:

George,
sorry to hear things are that scary where you are.

Because self-defence is not even a legal reason to own a firearm here, and we are required to keep any we do own locked up away from the ammo (also to be locked up), I do as the law specifies.

Not that I obsess about the matter, but I'm inclined to think the fence is the best defence: because intruders would almost always have the drop on me, I put my trust in door locks and not looking too prosperous.

What a sorry state of affairs......

F-ing A, Jason - they don't even let us have more than one wife!

quote:

Originally posted by sambarman338:
F-ing A, Jason - they don't even let us have more than one wife!

Our gun laws suck big time. Ihave done nothing wrong so why should I not be able to hunt with a semi auto rifle or shotgun. Why should I not be able to participate in Military comps with an SLR.

We might not of had any more mass shootings but violent crime has climbed.

Sambarman you have fallen for Howards and the antis crap. There was more than one person who lost family at Port Aurthor but only one is remembered because he became the antis pin up boy and they exploited him big time. There were 3 others who got very little air time who had lost their family members there who were dead set against Howards laws. Their arguments included that if others around the area had rifles they could of stopped the killings and that the rifle was not the problem it was the nutcase. They rightfully pointed out that addressing the nutcase problem would solve many more issued than howards laws would.

Well, Rule 303, I sympathise with your wish to use semi-auto guns and rifles. As I have written elsewhere, I think Howard went too far banning all such things, and that I used and even designed them myself.

Even if Johnnie's laws have succeeded in stopping mass murders with guns here, there is no such thing as a magic bullet; fixing one problem does not necessarily solve all problems.

The drug 'ice' seems to be lifting violent crime massively, and increasing poverty leaves people exposed and inclined to desperate measures. (If the present government succeeds in denying the unemployed any benefits for six months, I'd expect those without family support to become increasingly ratty while trying to avoid starvation.)

Walter Mikac is simply the person we know of who lost the most family members at Port Arthur. While I don't support his charity, I think it is a bit cynical to dismiss him as a 'pin up boy'. If you had had your wife and small daughters slaughtered by a nutter with an assault rifle, you might be a little more reflective about your sacred right to have an SLR, too.

Would you care to name the three others who lost family but would like to argue against the Howard laws? The thought of everyone else having a pistol in their pockets stopping madmen appeals to some, but takes us somewhere beyond Wyatt Earp's Dodge City. Never mind the accidents and hot-head arguments that might destroy this Utopian situation - how would the interstate and international visitors have got their guns on the planes to get there? Even in Wyoming 28 years ago, the authorities were in no mood to let me buy a gun for final defence against grizzlies.

While I'm rueful of the bean counters' closing mental hospitals, the mass murderers were rarely people with any form police or health authorities could triangulate accurately beforehand. They were more often lonely boys playing violent computer games than slobbering maniacs, banging their heads against a wall.