Guns

[ozwinner]

OK
Bubinga has brought up a valid point about guns, or the lack of them in Oz.
Has banning them done any good??

Sorry, I just seen the date, bad timeing.:o

Al :)

[echnidna]

Generally probably a good thing but there have been a few excesses such as banning air rifles and other relatively innoccouos things.

[Dean]

There is always the black market. If you want a gun, you could probably source one I would imagine. They aren't "banned" as such, you just need a license to own them now :rolleyes:

[Shane Watson]

Yeah, and its real nice when ya licence's expire and your not notified of such and therfore one sunny afternoon you happen to look at them and discover they are just over 6mths past exp. so have to go re-sit the whole saftey thing and re-apply as if I was never licenced......grrrrrr..... :mad:

[ozwinner]

Yeah, and its real nice when ya licence's expire and your not notified of such and therfore one sunny afternoon you happen to look at them and discover they are just over 6mths past exp. so have to go re-sit the whole saftey thing and re-apply as if I was never licenced......grrrrrr..... :mad:
Im suprised the Storm Troopers wernt kicking your door down.:D

Al :eek:

[Robert WA]

Having said I am glad, I do have one regret, similar to Echidna.

I live in a semi rural area with a lot of native bush around. A 4/10 for snakes would be nice.

I could get one licensed but it is expensive for something that might get used just a few times a year, if that, and I would have to have a complying cabinet to go with it. :(

[Daddles]

Years ago, when my Dad was a teenager, he got a job. From his first paycheck, he bought himself a Lithgow, bolt action 22. Being a counry lad, that rifle did a lot of work over the years, including teaching myself to shoot and to be safe with cannons.
However, come the revolution and all the new rules and regs and expenses. Now that both Dad and meself lived in the city with only rare use for it, it was too hard and too expensive to keep it.
And so a family heirloom was lost to the crusher. :(

I guess it makes sense to some people, but so do a lot of things that make no sense to me.

Incidentally, about three months after all the bans and things came in, a mate showed me a fully automatic 22 with a 20 shell magazine. That's right, a bloody machine gun. It had been imported years ago by one of his mates and, machine guns never having been legal, it was never registered. My mate got cold feet and sold it on.

The moral is - laws only restrict honest people.

I can't say I'm sad to see a lot of those rifles gone. I knew blokes in Squiddly who used to go shooting rabbits with semi-automatic 222s. A close miss would kill the bunny with the shock. A hit would destroy it. I could never see the point in owning or using those cannons. But is society safer for them being gone? Probably, but in a realistic manner? You're telling me that that ******* from Pt Arthur (yes, I can remember his name) couldn't arm himself now? Remember his wasn't a sudden urge to go play bang bangs. He'd been a gun nutcase for years and had gradually built up his arsenal, and he had the money to do it.

In short, I think it was a very expensive piece of political stupidity - but I'm not sad to see most of those cannons gone. However, I do think it's sad that my Dad was forced to get rid of something he'd owned for half a century.

Cheers
Richard

[outback]

A 4/10 for snakes would be nice.

I a'n't bein' a nazi, just raisng a point, maybe of interest to some.

The old snake gun to which you refer is actually a .410, as in calibre. Funny buggers decided not to call it a gauge like 12, 16 etc. Anyhow, that's all I'll add to the thread, cos' I got pretty strong feelings, but I'll keep 'em to meself.

[ozwinner]

Thats why we are here.

Time to fess up.

Al

[craigb]

Al, your poll choices don't really give us a choice. However, I guess I know what you are getting at.

For mine, I'm pleased that the gun laws have been tightened dramatically.

I can see why a farmer would need to own a gun, I can't see why a city person would need to own one.

And nobody has a reason to own a semi-automatic assault rifle.

I guess we have to ask ourselves; how many gun masacres have occured since 1996?

Answer: none.

[echnidna]

Semi automatics are desirable in croc & buff country. Even in wild pig country

[MajorPanic]

The gun laws that have been introduced were just a knee-jerk reaction to Port Arthur & have gone WAY too far.

I do agree that the laws needed tightening but not to extent they have been. If lesser stringent laws were introduced & CORRECTLY POLICED we would have the same outcome without the curtailment of an enjoyable pastime for thousands of law abiding citizens.

As to massacres, how many happened BEFORE 1996?
As to shootings, it doesen't seem to have slowed or holted too many, according to a mate who is a copper. Apparently hand guns are still easily attainable with the right contacts.... revolvers are a special order & semi-autos are standard.

Just remember we all have & use the most deadly weapon in Australia... A CAR, it has killed & maimed more people in Aus than all the shootings combined by a factor of 100 or more!

[bitingmidge]

Where can one purchase hand grenades???

They are only single shot, so should be ok with a license?

P
:D

[echnidna]

Reportedly the Oz Goverment's restrictions on supplying ammunition to New Guinea has just about disarmed many of the criminal gangs there. It now costs them about 1 months wages for a single bullet.

[MajorPanic]

Where can one purchase hand grenades???

They are only single shot, so should be ok with a license?

P
:D
When I was in the Army I went fishing with hand grenades at Sholewater Bay.
It's a quick way to land enough fish to feed a regiment & OS visitors. ;) :D

[craigb]

As to massacres, how many happened BEFORE 1996?
[/b]

Well there was Strathfield in Sydney in '89. Six or seven were killed in that one.

Then there was Surry Hills in '90, that took about 5 I think.

Of course there was Hoddle Street in Melbourne in ('87?) can't remember the numbers but it was more than 5. That Julian Knight must be getting toward the end of his sentence too :mad:

And not forgetting Queen St, also in Melbourne.

So, to answer your question; quite a few.

[Robert WA]

I a'n't bein' a nazi, just raisng a point, maybe of interest to some.

The old snake gun to which you refer is actually a .410, as in calibre. Funny buggers decided not to call it a gauge like 12, 16 etc. Anyhow, that's all I'll add to the thread, cos' I got pretty strong feelings, but I'll keep 'em to meself.

Whoops. You are right. A slip of the finger, the one I use to type.

[MajorPanic]

Well there was Strathfield in Sydney in '89. Six or seven were killed in that one.

Then there was Surry Hills in '90, that took about 5 I think.

Of course there was Hoddle Street in Melbourne in ('87?) can't remember the numbers but it was more than 5. That Julian Knight must be getting toward the end of his sentence too :mad:

And not forgetting Queen St, also in Melbourne.

So, to answer your question; quite a few.
There have been 13 massacres between 1987 & 1996 Australia wide... only one used an assult rifle. (only a quick internet search was carried out) So that means that all the others were carried out using CURRENTLY, easily available weapons including KNIVES.

There have been attacks & massacres since 1996 using other weapons besides auto weapons.

[craigb]

There have been attacks & massacres since 1996 using other weapons besides auto weapons.

Care to name them ?

How did this get reduced to a debate about assault rifles?

[Daddles]

Care to name them ?

How did this get reduced to a debate about assault rifles?

Possibly because this was what it was all about. While it's hard to justify a thumpin' great big cannon for most jobs, the only reason to have an assault rifle is to attack men. Even pig hunters, while they might appreciate an AK 47 or an SLR, have other semi-automatic weapons they can choose from.

I see no reason why ANY australian need own an operative assault rifle.

On the other hand, why the hell shouldn't he?

Why should we, the majority (who will never own one), restrict the ownership of the minority?
Because, there is no need for that ownership and some have used them for horrible purposes.

This is difficult for me because I see no earthly reason for owning these weapons in an operative state, ie, outside a collection. Sorry, I don't see artificial target shooting competitions as justification because there are better, specialist weapons for such a purpose and so, the need to own an assault rifle, is just that, artificial.
However, I don't see why someone should be prevented from wasting his own money to purchase a completely useless piece of equiptment if he so chooses.
And then we head into the sticky territory of men on the land, in their various guises, who may feel they need one of these rifles. But, do they need an AK47 to hunt pigs rather than a civilian semi-automatic weapon? I dunno. I've never faced a grumpy pig.

But, we do know that the perpetrators of the few masacres we've had have used this sort of weapon and why shouldn't they? If you wanted to smooth a plank of wood, wouldn't you choose the plane designed to do the job? The trouble is, these weapons ending up in the hands of the nut cases. Sadly, the current laws do **** all to address this. I'm quite sure that any of our mass murderers of history could legally acquire the weapons to repeat their crimes if they chose to.

So, are the current laws wrong?
I wouldn't go that far. I'd say they were ineffective. However, they do restrict the impulse killer. Whether the democratic price we pay justifies this, I don't know. Philosophically, I'd say it doesn't. However, we are probably a safer society for those laws. The nutters can get the weapons if they choose to, but they would have anyway.
But, rather than get picket marks in my bum from sitting on the fence, I'm afraid I have to support democracy and choose that these weapons be available, with efficient and appropriate control (which the current laws pay lip service to) and if it came to a vote, that's the way I'd vote. However, I'm not going to march to have those laws repealled, because the controls we have now, while not efficient, are better than no controls at all.

Cheers
Richard

[Iain]

But, do they need an AK47 to hunt pigs rather than a civilian semi-automatic weapon? I dunno. I've never faced a grumpy pig.


What is the essential difference, point, pull trigger, bang, reload and ready to go again in both instances.
Apart from the emotional crap put out by the media, killing machines etc, the AK47 is a crude device and nowhere near as refined as a sporting rifle, sloppy tolerances in the mechanisms although this was deliberate to allow for the gun to be dropped in mud and other assorted nasties and still be operational.
The pig shooters weapon of choice used to be a 30 calibre as used by the US Military and to shoot deer (oh dear, how can we kill such a beautiful animal) requires a minimum calibre, not being a shooter this does not affect me but I detest the way the media have pandered to the minority and swung government yet again.
Next I will have to register my cutlery and fly rods :mad:

[Eastie]

Since when have guns been banned?

As far as I'm aware I'm still licensed and my guns are still registered. For anyone who thinks they need a semi-auto - get with the program. I went through 7 boxes of 22 bullets after the bushfires with an old bolt action, I couldn't have done it any quicker with a semi-auto nor would I have cared to. The only reason I've seen to own one is farming emu's/ostriches - but that's another story.

The farmers I shoot for are predominantly private fenced property - most now locking their gates to stop spotlighters, poachers and suburban 4wd clubs from inviting themselves in for a free-for-all.

Personally I see little problem with the current laws - they allow legitimate use for legitimate reasons. If you want to own a pistol - join a pistol club. If you want to own rifles or shotguns, hold a game license. It's pretty simple.

[Waldo]

G'day,

On reading the nasty story in yesterdays Sun Herald I thought I'd add my 2 cents since the reporter went off saying how there are so many guns out there and what suburbs have the most. The suburb I live in wasn't mentioned, but that's beside the point.

Before my Dad passed away I asked him if I could have his air rifle - A Crossman 766 American Classic. The only reason I have a licence is to be able to legally own that gun.

Sitting and passing the licence test was simple, going throught the motions of getting a gun down from Brisbane to Melbourne was like jumping through 20 hoops at a circus. To ensure I did it all correctly I rang the Licencing Branch at Knox 3 times and got 2 different answers. Did the stuff I had to in Brisbane to the letter that I was told at the time, got it down here and found I did it incorrectly. Eventually it was sorted out.

To legally keep my gun and hold a licence I am a member of the Melbourne Uni Rifle Club, each Monday night I shoot at targets 10m away and hit a few bullseyes.

Sure you can proably find a gun on the black market, but I wouldn't have a clue as to how. Those who for whatever reason have a licence, understand expicitly the safety issues of being a safe gun owner. For my opinion we should be knocking off all feral animals in this great land of ours - foxes, wils pigs, wils cats, wild dogs (not dingos), and buffalo

I have a Category A Longarm Licence, if I had a Category E Licence I could own the ilk of a RPG, a cannon or a bazooka - now that could solve the problems of the myna birds that roam around my yard like a plauge at times, it would also solve the problem of getting rid of the cats that roam my yard that chase the mynas and other birds. Instead I'll stick to throwing rocks and lemons at the cats and scaring them half to death when I get up to 6' away from them.

[adrian]

As far as hunting is concerned, if you can't hit something with a bolt action rifle you're going to miss it with an AK47. Same goes for target shooting.
There's absolutely no place for auto and semi-auto in Australia I think, in many cases, it has more to do with an inadequate appendage size.

[bitingmidge]

now that could solve the problems of the myna birds that roam around my yard like a plauge at times, it would also solve the problem of getting rid of the cats that roam my yard that chase the mynas and other birds. Instead I'll stick to throwing rocks and lemons at the cats and scaring them half to death when I get up to 6' away from them.

It is still perfectly legal to own a shanghai (slingshot) provided it does not have an arm-brace.

They can be bought quite cheaply in disposals type shops, but of course I made my own the good old fashioned way(!) and powered it with some spear gun rubber.

While it is possible to shoot a glass marble through a pine paling with it, that sort of behavior does bring with it other consequences in suburbia.

My modern equivalent to a salt-peter laden shotgun, is my shanghai loaded with a handfull of frozen peas.

You can't miss, and can't do any harm, but the recalcitrant birds/cats don't come back after a couple of doses.

Dunno how the CSI vet clinic autopsies would read though.

P (anyone for crow pie and peas??)

:D :D :D

[aussiecolector]

Chris!
I have a cat E licence but I'm afraid I can't own the weapons you mentioned.

As to safety under the new laws, yes there is less chance of being shot these days. The firearm homicide rate has been droping steadily since the early 70's with no long term interuption around the late 90's when these laws started.
On the other hand there is a higher chance of being murdered these days. The over all homicide rate started a sharp climb at about the same time the new laws were introduced. Was this caused by the laws or some other socal trend? I dont know.

[Iain]

Chris!
I have a cat E licence
Never seen an e cat, hard to hit? :D :D :D :D :D

[Waldo]

G'day Aussiecollector,

I've always been intruged by the Category E licence and how you can own such weapons (not questioning why or casting any thing untowards). Given you are a collector I'm guessing that you have to have a firing pins etc. removed. Outside of owning them as a collector, are you able to own such big fellas for other reasons?

Oh the joys of Adam and Jamie on Mythbusters and if a thing doesn't work let's blow the thing up to get the biggest bang possible. :D

[Waldo]

G'day Iain,

The only good cat is a dead cat, or one that's not in my yard. Maybe an E cat is like a bra size, which means that he's a big fella and probably easier to hit.

[aussiecolector]

Chris
In Queensland at least a cat E wepond is a bullet proof vest also used to include telascopic battons which have been moved to cat M or "restricted". No firing pins to worry about. Most of the big stuff comes under cat R and hast to be "permantaly inoprable"
I dont own anything in cat E or R.

[smidsy]

The the Port Arthur massacre was a cover up.
The weapon that Bryant used was traced and found to have been recorded as destroyed after being handed in during a gun amnesty in Victoria.

Why was someone with a history of mental illness able to get hold of a destroyed weapon?

The fact is that the gun laws have had zero effect in regard to criminals gaining access to guns, all they are doing is making it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms.

Cheers
Paul

[bitingmidge]

The the Port Arthur massacre was a cover up.
The weapon that Bryant used was traced and found to have been recorded as destroyed after being handed in during a gun amnesty in Victoria.


And here was I thinking that the whole assault-rifle-handing-in-thing came about as a RESULT of Port Arthur!!!

History has a strange way of changing with time..... I've read lots and lots of conspiracy theories about how the bloke in question was set up by the government so they'd have an excuse to ban guns, so I guess you've disproved that one!

P
:rolleyes:

[Daddles]

The the Port Arthur massacre was a cover up.
The weapon that Bryant used was traced and found to have been recorded as destroyed after being handed in during a gun amnesty in Victoria.

Why was someone with a history of mental illness able to get hold of a destroyed weapon?

The fact is that the gun laws have had zero effect in regard to criminals gaining access to guns, all they are doing is making it harder for law abiding citizens to own firearms.

Cheers
Paul

I think you need to re-read your history Paul. He had more than one weapon with him, he used more than one weapon and they were all legal. Apart from that, I'm not going to argue with your points.

Cheers
Richard

[Iain]

Why was someone with a history of mental illness able to get hold of a destroyed weapon?

Because the social workers and advocates of equality for all deem this to be an acceptable practice, but when it backfires they are the first to duck for cover and point the finger at innocent bystanders such as the police who ask the same question.