So much for gun control

[karj]

Originally Posted by GhiaEB

Wait hang on. You agree with tough gun laws, but then say your not worried about legal owners? So you are saying its the owners of illegal weapons, that's the issue? Having tough/tougher gun laws doesn't affect illegal weapon owners. As they don't adhere to the laws anyhow.

Not having a go at ya mate, but that doesn't make sence. It would be like banning all V8s because people with unrego'd ones keep doing burnouts. Or making all alcohol illegal because of underage drinking.

Fair enough. I'll try to clarify.

I'm not advocating banning firearms, but I don't really think restricting semi-auto assault rifles or having a licensing system or background checks is unreasonable. As neither a gun hater, a gun lover or even a gun user... that to me would seem like basic common sense.

If we had very relaxed gun laws bordering on no controls, people would have easier access to guns and gun sales would rise. More guns around and more gun owners. This wouldn't be a problem if everybody was responsible or mentally stable... but we don't live in utopia. It would be up to individuals as to whether they stored them appropriately, or received proper training.

This would mean more guns would fall into the wrong hands and that's why I am of the opinion that we do need a reasonably robust legislative approach. The hard criminal elements may not adhere to the law, but there is a spectrum of criminality and gun legislation does control ownership by those on the middle to lower end of the criminal spectrum. I imagine our current gun laws are very effective in terms of restricting gun use in domestic violence.

I have no idea how we could target gun controls so that we only affected criminals, unfortunately responsible owners get caught in the net.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by karj

Fair enough. I'll try to clarify.

I'm not advocating banning firearms, but I don't really think restricting semi-auto assault rifles or having a licensing system or background checks is unreasonable. As neither a gun hater, a gun lover or even a gun user... that to me would seem like basic common sense.

If we had very relaxed gun laws bordering on no controls, people would have easier access to guns and gun sales would rise. More guns around and more gun owners. This wouldn't be a problem if everybody was responsible or mentally stable... but we don't live in utopia. It would be up to individuals as to whether they stored them appropriately, or received proper training.

This would mean more guns would fall into the wrong hands and that's why I am of the opinion that we do need a reasonably robust legislative approach. The hard criminal elements may not adhere to the law, but there is a spectrum of criminality and gun legislation does control ownership by those on the middle to lower end of the criminal spectrum. I imagine our current gun laws are very effective in terms of restricting gun use in domestic violence.

I have no idea how we could target gun controls so that we only affected criminals, unfortunately responsible owners get caught in the net.

Our gun laws are as effective in curbing gun use in domestic violence and our hoon laws are in curbing misbehaviour on the roads.

Simple yes or no.

Do you believe that semi auto centre fire rifles should be available to competition shooters for use in events that require them in the same way that semi auto centre fire handguns are?
Please note I am talking about events that subscribe to international rules such as IPSC, PALMA or NRA etc. not something that has been made up to suit.

[karj]

Originally Posted by flappist

Our gun laws are as effective in curbing gun use in domestic violence and our hoon laws are in curbing misbehaviour on the roads.
Simple yes or no.

I don't believe gun restrictions curb DV, but I believe that they are effective in curbing gun use in DV. You may disagree with that, but I actually think it's obvious. I live on a street with a mix of public and private housing and when the harmless old codger next door moved out, Housing SA put a chaming lady in there. All was quiet for a couple of months and then she disappeared... turned out she was sent to jail for stabbing someone. After she returned from her stint in jail, it became obvious that she was also a low-level dug dealer. I witnessed a lot of DV whilst she was there and other low-level criminal activity. One of the many things that happened was that she had an altercation with a guy, who then left and returned with a few mates 15 mins later to smash all her windows out with a cricket bat. If they had access to a semi-auto rifle, I think there is a fair chance they would have used that instead. These are sorts of people I am worried about having easy access to firearms.

Originally Posted by flappist

Do you believe that semi auto centre fire rifles should be available to competition shooters for use in events that require them in the same way that semi auto centre fire handguns are?
Please note I am talking about events that subscribe to international rules such as IPSC, PALMA or NRA etc. not something that has been made up to suit.

Amittedly I'm a little uneasy about it because it places more of them in the community, but I'm not wholly against it. I could come to terms with it if it was regulated with *very* stringent checks and requirements for civilian competition shooters. Something like a requirement to have held a gun license for x period of years and evidence of partcipation in those specific events. I wouldn't want any Tom, Dick or Harry to have access.

I probably don't have a hell of a lot more to contribute to the discussion without sounding more like a broken record.

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by karj

I don't believe gun restrictions curb DV, but I believe that they are effective in curbing gun use in DV. You may disagree with that, but I actually think it's obvious. I live on a street with a mix of public and private housing and when the harmless old codger next door moved out, Housing SA put a chaming lady in there. All was quiet for a couple of months and then she dissappeared... turned out she was sent to jail for stabbing someone. After she returned from her stint in jail, it became obvious that she was also a low-level dug dealer. I witnessed a lot of DV whilst she was there and other low-level criminal activity. One of the many things that happened was that she had an altercation with a guy, who then left and returned with a few mates 15 mins later to smash all her windows out with a cricket bat. If they had access to a semi-auto rifle, I think there is a fair chance they would have used that instead. These are sorts of people I am worried about having easy access to firearms.

I really think you are missing the point. crims have access to firearms if they want to use them. restrictions only stop the law abiding people getting firearms. there is, and always will be a black market in firearms for crims.
before you lable me as just another shooter with a vested interest, I do not and never have held a shooters licence or owned firearms. I used to shoot in cadets as a teenager and I did learn to respect firearms though.
Why am I defending shooters? I feel that people should be able to own firearms if they are of good character, there needs to be regulation of firearm ownership but it is currently over regulated.
On the other hand I do belive anyone convicted if any firearm offence should be treated in a manner that discourages others from thaking the same action

[karj]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

I really think you are missing the point. crims have access to firearms if they want to use them. restrictions only stop the law abiding people getting firearms. there is, and always will be a black market in firearms for crims.
before you lable me as just another shooter with a vested interest, I do not and never have held a shooters licence or owned firearms. I used to shoot in cadets as a teenager and I did learn to respect firearms though.
Why am I defending shooters? I feel that people should be able to own firearms if they are of good character, there needs to be regulation of firearm ownership but it is currently over regulated.
On the other hand I do belive anyone convicted if any firearm offence should be treated in a manner that discourages others from thaking the same action

It's funny, because I actually think you are missing the point. You and a few others seem to think that the world is divided into reasonable law abiding people and hardened criminals who get weapons on the black market. This is simply not the case. There is a spectrum of criminality.

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by karj

It's funny, because I actually think you are missing the point. You and a few others seem to think that the world is divided into reasonable law abiding people and hardened criminals who get weapons on the black market. This is simply not the case. There is a spectrum of criminality.

the simple fact is that the vast majority of firearm crime is perpetrated by criminals using illegal firearms not registerd owners

[karj]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

the simple fact is that the vast majority of firearm crime is perpetrated by criminals using illegal firearms not registerd owners

Of course it is!

I don't understand why people think I'm saying anything else. When you relax the laws, it makes it easier for everyone... which includes both reasonable people and criminals (unfortunately).

If we could target the laws more effectively, I'd be all for that. But I don't know how we would go about doing that.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that. Thanks for the conversation fellas, I do have more of an understanding of our gun laws now than I did before.

Cheers

[Kryton]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

the simple fact is that the vast majority of firearm crime is perpetrated by criminals using illegal firearms not registerd owners

I think the point is that a large number of "illegal" firearms are weapons that have been stolen from legal owners.
I know that weapon related thefts around this area are massively on the rise.
The point is, if there werent weapons to steal, the "illegal" use wouldnt be so great.

[EASYBOSS]

Originally Posted by davway

I think the point is that a large number of "illegal" firearms are weapons that have been stolen from legal owners.
I know that weapon related thefts around this area are massively on the rise.
The point is, if there werent weapons to steal, the "illegal" use wouldnt be so great.

Good point, thats one of the most sensible comments I have read from you, not that I read everything you post.

Take it as a complement.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by karj

I don't believe gun restrictions curb DV, but I believe that they are effective in curbing gun use in DV. You may disagree with that, but I actually think it's obvious. I live on a street with a mix of public and private housing and when the harmless old codger next door moved out, Housing SA put a chaming lady in there. All was quiet for a couple of months and then she disappeared... turned out she was sent to jail for stabbing someone. After she returned from her stint in jail, it became obvious that she was also a low-level dug dealer. I witnessed a lot of DV whilst she was there and other low-level criminal activity. One of the many things that happened was that she had an altercation with a guy, who then left and returned with a few mates 15 mins later to smash all her windows out with a cricket bat. If they had access to a semi-auto rifle, I think there is a fair chance they would have used that instead. These are sorts of people I am worried about having easy access to firearms.


Amittedly I'm a little uneasy about it because it places more of them in the community, but I'm not wholly against it. I could come to terms with it if it was regulated with *very* stringent checks and requirements for civilian competition shooters. Something like a requirement to have held a gun license for x period of years and evidence of partcipation in those specific events. I wouldn't want any Tom, Dick or Harry to have access.

I probably don't have a hell of a lot more to contribute to the discussion without sounding more like a broken record.

Just so you understand how it is now for handguns.
In order to possess a handgun for the purpose of target shooting:
1) The licensee must have a clean record both criminally and medically.
2) The licensee must be a current financial member of an approved club. (clubs are approved by Police are are mosly a division of APSA (Olymipcs) or SSAA (Sporting shooters).
3) The licensee must attend training and be found competent in several area of safety, legislation and operational skill. (if you can't work it safely you lose it)
4) The licensee must attend at least 6 competetive events PER GUN per year (if you have 3 guns you need 18 events)
5) The handguns must be kept in a far more secure storage than even S8 drugs.
6) The handgun can be used for no other purpose whatsoever.
7) The licensee's premisis can be inspected at any time without warning to check on secure storage and that the gun is not "on holidays".

Now as far as the "x number of years" again you are kidding right?
Look at how dismally we are doing in the olympics in shooting as opposed to how well we have done over the previous 100 years or so.
Train them young and keep them interested. How do you think out athletics and swimming would be if you hade to be a member of a club for X years before you were actually allowed to train?

Your almost paranoia is still showing. People kill people not guns or knives or whatever else and het will kill just as easily without a gun as with.

If this were not the case then Switzerland would be the gun death capital of the world as almost EVERYONE must own a machine gun, in their own house with ammo and places like Japan, New York, UK and yes even Norway would have no gun crime as guns are extremely tightly controlled there.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by davway

I think the point is that a large number of "illegal" firearms are weapons that have been stolen from legal owners.
I know that weapon related thefts around this area are massively on the rise.
The point is, if there werent weapons to steal, the "illegal" use wouldnt be so great.

But all hoons drive performance cars, if there were no performance cars there would be far less hooning.........

[karj]

Originally Posted by flappist

Just so you understand how it is now for handguns.
In order to possess a handgun for the purpose of target shooting:
1) The licensee must have a clean record both criminally and medically.
2) The licensee must be a current financial member of an approved club. (clubs are approved by Police are are mosly a division of APSA (Olymipcs) or SSAA (Sporting shooters).
3) The licensee must attend training and be found competent in several area of safety, legislation and operational skill. (if you can't work it safely you lose it)
4) The licensee must attend at least 6 competetive events PER GUN per year (if you have 3 guns you need 18 events)
5) The handguns must be kept in a far more secure storage than even S8 drugs.
6) The handgun can be used for no other purpose whatsoever.
7) The licensee's premisis can be inspected at any time without warning to check on secure storage and that the gun is not "on holidays".

Now as far as the "x number of years" again you are kidding right?
Look at how dismally we are doing in the olympics in shooting as opposed to how well we have done over the previous 100 years or so.
Train them young and keep them interested. How do you think out athletics and swimming would be if you hade to be a member of a club for X years before you were actually allowed to train?

Your almost paranoia is still showing. People kill people not guns or knives or whatever else and het will kill just as easily without a gun as with.

If this were not the case then Switzerland would be the gun death capital of the world as almost EVERYONE must own a machine gun, in their own house with ammo and places like Japan, New York, UK and yes even Norway would have no gun crime as guns are extremely tightly controlled there.

I am just responding as a courtesy to let you know that I've read your post, but I've said about all I can on the subject.

I have tried really hard to find a common ground with you. As far as I can tell we both agree that guns shouldn't be completely banned and we both agree that there should be some legislative process involved with firearm ownership. Where we seem to differ is the strength of that legislation. I don't proclaim to know how strong our laws should be, but I do know that people shouldn't just be able to buy an AR-15 or similar without significant checks and regulation and with little experience.

I am sorry if that bothers you, but I honestly don't think that is unreasonable.

[Stugots]

Originally Posted by karj

One of the many things that happened was that she had an altercation with a guy, who then left and returned with a few mates 15 mins later to smash all her windows out with a cricket bat. If they had access to a semi-auto rifle, I think there is a fair chance they would have used that instead. These are sorts of people I am worried about having easy access to

That's a bold assumption. Who's to say the guy or his few mates didn't have access to semi automatic firearms? Smashing someones windows doesn't automatically link back to gun use.

[gcmc2]

Saw a bumper sticker the other day that said:

IF YOU MAKE GUNS ILLEGAL ONLY CRIMINALS WILL HAVE GUNS

There's a logic there that just can't be dismissed and it kind of goes a way towards justifying the right to bear arms that Americans won't let go of.

Quite simply, those who are disposed to shooting people are never going to surrender their guns, so why should people who aren't so disposed surrender theirs ?

It really doesn't make a lot of sense does it ? Way after Howard's amnesty and gun surrender schemes it was reported that guns were being smuggled into the country at an alarming rate.

There were reports of as many as 500 handguns being smuggled in single containers.

That's exactly what prompted the review of customs procedures whereafter they told us that every container was now being x-rayed. ( reportedly only 1 in 1000 were up until then )

By then it was way too late because there was a push among young hoods in the years leading up to it to arm themselves.

That's exactly why the use of handguns in crimes and even just street assaults is now so much more prevalent.

In view of this and the ever increasing incidence of home invasion type crimes, it's just plain crazy for people to reject the idea of gun ownership out of hand.

If you think that violent crime is going to decrease any time soon ( or any time ever if criminal sentencing remains the joke that it is ), I think you're under an illusion.

So, surrender of guns has done nothing other than to increase the number of guns in the hands of criminals and decrease the number held by honest, decent folk.

Of course the police now have to deal with the fact that a much larger number of criminals are armed now.

In my view, gun ownership should not be restricted to sporting and proffessional shooters.

In the times we are living I think a responsible householder with no serious criminal record should be allowed to have a gun in the home for the protection of his family.

He would take on the responsibility for its security, perhaps undergo manditory training and understand in what circumstances it may be appropriate to employ it.

He'd also have to face any consequences that may arise, but I'd rather do that than see one of my family lying dead on the floor.

For those completely opposed to gun ownership l'd hope you can see some logic in this and also hope you're never a victim of one of these ever increasing terrifying violent invasions or such.

I am not directing this at any one individual commenting here but I do believe that the ugly violent times we now live in are probably justification for a secured firearm at home.

So, I think the bumper sticker kind of puts it in a nutshell.

[2011G6E]

A better one than the old "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is one I saw on a website today.

"If guns kill people, how come anyone ever makes it out of a gun show alive...?"

[gcmc2]

Originally Posted by Stugots

That's a bold assumption. Who's to say the guy or his few mates didn't have access to semi automatic firearms? Smashing someones windows doesn't automatically link back to gun use.

Yes, it's drawing an awful long bow to suggest that young guys vandalising a house would have murdered the occupants if they had access to firearms.

That's just a crazy leap.

That sort of vandalism happens probably 50 times a night in major cities.

Their access to alcohol is much more likely to have been the problem.

[HLC]

Originally Posted by karj

I am just responding as a courtesy to let you know that I've read your post, but I've said about all I can on the subject.

I have tried really hard to find a common ground with you. As far as I can tell we both agree that guns shouldn't be completely banned and we both agree that there should be some legislative process involved with firearm ownership. Where we seem to differ is the strength of that legislation. I don't proclaim to know how strong our laws should be, but I do know that people shouldn't just be able to buy an AR-15 or similar without significant checks and regulation and with little experience.

I am sorry if that bothers you, but I honestly don't think that is unreasonable.

Well I'm not sure how you can regulate firearm ownership anymore.. Prostate exam? We aren't all army snipers and need psych exams.

I've held a firearm licence since I was 12 (now 24), and have owned my own firearms since I was 19.

If I commit an offence other than minor traffic infringements, I lose my licence, guns confiscated.

If I forget to renew my licence and go to the range, and get pulled over, guns confiscated.

If the police turn up to my house to check my 2 safe's and neither meet the security standards, guns confiscated.

Bad people are still bad. If they can't get a gun, they'll get a knife, if they can't get a knife they'll get a bat...


If you are insinuating that their needs to be some sort of character test when getting a licence? Well I had to submit a character reference signed by a JP when changing my license from NSW to WA. I'd already held my licence for 10 years by then.

I've just joined a new club, and still need to go thru their training plan and meet their minimum shoot requirements, and I've held a licence for 12 years, won my grade and division at State level IPSC and competed at a National Level in IPSC as well.

But then who is a good judge of character these days? Plenty of bad cops out there, or people in power who have turned bad... There is and never will be such a control in place. And even if there was, the real psycho's will be able to act all happy and normal in order to get what they want to commit whatever sick acts they have in mind.

Plenty of serial killers in the past have picked up their victims with 'good intentions'... Who would willingly get in a car with someone who says, 'hey, come back to mine so I can drug you, rape you and disembowel you!'

This topic is very close to being finished. People will never agree on firearms legislation.

[gcmc2]

Originally Posted by HLC

Well I'm not sure how you can regulate firearm ownership anymore.. Prostate exam? We aren't all army snipers and need psych exams.

I've held a firearm licence since I was 12 (now 24), and have owned my own firearms since I was 19.

If I commit an offence other than minor traffic infringements, I lose my licence, guns confiscated.

If I forget to renew my licence and go to the range, and get pulled over, guns confiscated.

If the police turn up to my house to check my 2 safe's and neither meet the security standards, guns confiscated.

Bad people are still bad. If they can't get a gun, they'll get a knife, if they can't get a knife they'll get a bat...


If you are insinuating that their needs to be some sort of character test when getting a licence? Well I had to submit a character reference signed by a JP when changing my license from NSW to WA. I'd already held my licence for 10 years by then.

I've just joined a new club, and still need to go thru their training plan and meet their minimum shoot requirements, and I've held a licence for 12 years, won my grade and division at State level IPSC and competed at a National Level in IPSC as well.

But then who is a good judge of character these days? Plenty of bad cops out there, or people in power who have turned bad... There is and never will be such a control in place. And even if there was, the real psycho's will be able to act all happy and normal in order to get what they want to commit whatever sick acts they have in mind.

Plenty of serial killers in the past have picked up their victims with 'good intentions'... Who would willingly get in a car with someone who says, 'hey, come back to mine so I can drug you, rape you and disembowel you!'

This topic is very close to being finished. People will never agree on firearms legislation.

I am interested in your position on a householder who has no interest in guns other than to have one for protection.

I do see the practical problem of the security safe requirements making the weapon perhaps pretty hard to access in a hurry, but if we put that aside what's your opinion ?

Incidentally, a friend of mine and his son are keen shooters ( target ) and the police did lob out of the blue at their place at Kenthurst for a random check. So it does happen if anyone thinks it's just a paper threat.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by gcmc2

I am interested in your position on a householder who has no interest in guns other than to have one for protection.

I do see the practical problem of the security safe requirements making the weapon perhaps pretty hard to access in a hurry, but if we put that aside what's your opinion ?

Incidentally, a friend of mine and his son are keen shooters ( target ) and the police did lob out of the blue at their place at Kenthurst for a random check. So it does happen if anyone thinks it's just a paper threat.

I will throw my two bobs worth in on this I you don't mind as I have many years experience with people in your position.

Firstly, if you have no interest other than personal protection and will never use or practice with it do not buy a gun. It really will end in tears as unfamiliarity and adrenalin will often lead to tragedy with you shooting yourself, a bystander or the "bad guy" before you have actually determined if there is an actual threat rather than a misunderstanding.

So now assuming that you will actually practice on a reasonably regular basis i.e. once every few months the ideal firearm for you is a short shotgun (20") preferably fitted with external hammers.
A pump would be better as the "rack rack" noise is universal code for "y'all in a lotta trouble now boy" but these are prohibited.

A shotgun has a very short range so you are unlikely to hurt people you can't see, does not need to be aimed so much as pointed and can be loaded with non lethal ammunition such as rubber bullets etc.

The external hammers will allow you to investigate with a loaded chambre but preven the firearm discharging until you have cocked it. Of course it will not work if you do not **** it which brings me back to the "unfamiliarity and adrenalin".

I used to practice with my handgun at least a couple of times a month, sometimes in the dark, sometimes with lights in my eyes, in all sorts of weather including rain and frosty cold, without hearing protection and usually while moving backwards away from the target.

Please note that head shots and moving forward to engage the target are considered to be premeditated murder rather than self defense.

So to put it simply. If you are not prepared to become competent with the firearm choose something else.

[gcmc2]

Originally Posted by flappist

I will throw my two bobs worth in on this I you don't mind as I have many years experience with people in your position.

Firstly, if you have no interest other than personal protection and will never use or practice with it do not buy a gun. It really will end in tears as unfamiliarity and adrenalin will often lead to tragedy with you shooting yourself, a bystander or the "bad guy" before you have actually determined if there is an actual threat rather than a misunderstanding.

So now assuming that you will actually practice on a reasonably regular basis i.e. once every few months the ideal firearm for you is a short shotgun (20") preferably fitted with external hammers.
A pump would be better as the "rack rack" noise is universal code for "y'all in a lotta trouble now boy" but these are prohibited.

A shotgun has a very short range so you are unlikely to hurt people you can't see, does not need to be aimed so much as pointed and can be loaded with non lethal ammunition such as rubber bullets etc.

The external hammers will allow you to investigate with a loaded chambre but preven the firearm discharging until you have cocked it. Of course it will not work if you do not **** it which brings me back to the "unfamiliarity and adrenalin".

I used to practice with my handgun at least a couple of times a month, sometimes in the dark, sometimes with lights in my eyes, in all sorts of weather including rain and frosty cold, without hearing protection and usually while moving backwards away from the target.

Please note that head shots and moving forward to engage the target are considered to be premeditated murder rather than self defense.

So to put it simply. If you are not prepared to become competent with the firearm choose something else.

Yes, I appreciate that - I covered most of the detail in my earlier previous post.

I did say that training would be required and so on and that anyone who contemplated purchasing one, were it to become legal would need to be aware of their responsibilities and liabilities.

Shooting for the main body mass is the usual directive in firearm training anyway, but all aspects of gun handling would have to be covered. It would probably result in a new small industry of training establishments !

My position isn't of a novice - I'm no firearms expert, but familiar with guns ( various rifles and shotguns that is ) I've only ever fired a couple of pistols but never owned one or seen the need.

The householder refrence was really generic - not specific to me.

My question was really more on the principle of personal gun ownership for protection.

As I said in my reply to the previous poster - if we put the practical aspects aside for a moment and comment on the principle what do folk here think - should a guy be allowed to own a gun to protect his family ?

[steve.zissou]

addressing the initial post - yes one day 3d printers will make gun control a waste of time - no, the technology isnt quite there yet (think 3d printer that prints metal not plastic). Then again, the same thing can be said for CAD CAM CNC.

Then you have the situation in NSW that nobody wants to talk about - Criminals are already making their own guns - it aint rocket science. The reason this isnt getting coverage?????? because they are already doing something illegal - I guess they could try making illegal gun manufacture super double illegal but i doubt it will make a difference.
Eventually politicians will have to deal with the cause of crime and not the implements.

Does it mean they will??? of course not. look at knives. They ban (certain) knives and the carrying of knifes and does stop stabbings?? nope.

And finally a nice poem to reflect upon - written in 1907 by henry lawson - Just as true today as it was 100 odd years ago.

Every Man Should have a Rifle
So I sit and write and ponder, while the house is deaf and dumb,
Seeing visions "over yonder" of the war I know must come.
In the corner - not a vision - but a sign for coming days
Stand a box of ammunition and a rifle in green baize.
And in this, the living present, let the word go through the land,
Every tradesman, clerk and peasant should have these two things at hand.

No - no ranting song is needed, and no meeting, flag or fuss -
In the future, still unheeded, shall the spirit come to us!
Without feathers, drum or riot on the day that is to be,
We shall march down, very quiet, to our stations by the sea.
While the bitter parties stifle every voice that warns of war,
Every man should own a rifle and have cartridges in store!

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by gcmc2

Yes, I appreciate that - I covered most of the detail in my earlier previous post.

I did say that training would be required and so on and that anyone who contemplated purchasing one, were it to become legal would need to be aware of their responsibilities and liabilities.

Shooting for the main body mass is the usual directive in firearm training anyway, but all aspects of gun handling would have to be covered. It would probably result in a new small industry of training establishments !

My position isn't of a novice - I'm no firearms expert, but familiar with guns ( various rifles and shotguns that is ) I've only ever fired a couple of pistols but never owned one or seen the need.

The householder refrence was really generic - not specific to me.

My question was really more on the principle of personal gun ownership for protection.

As I said in my reply to the previous poster - if we put the practical aspects aside for a moment and comment on the principle what do folk here think - should a guy be allowed to own a gun to protect his family ?

In Australia, you can't have a gun for "personal protection". Too many people think you can, from watching too much TV and movies.

I don't think we need to go down the USA path on that.

With the law on security that the guns are locked up and ammunition stored separately, you would need a fair bit of time to get one out, if you did have an immediate threat to you life. And if you did use it, you would be the one in trouble with the law.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by steve.zissou

Every Man Should have a Rifle
So I sit and write and ponder, while the house is deaf and dumb,
Seeing visions "over yonder" of the war I know must come.
In the corner - not a vision - but a sign for coming days
Stand a box of ammunition and a rifle in green baize.
And in this, the living present, let the word go through the land,
Every tradesman, clerk and peasant should have these two things at hand.

No - no ranting song is needed, and no meeting, flag or fuss -
In the future, still unheeded, shall the spirit come to us!
Without feathers, drum or riot on the day that is to be,
We shall march down, very quiet, to our stations by the sea.
While the bitter parties stifle every voice that warns of war,
Every man should own a rifle and have cartridges in store!

We probably have enough guns now Henry!

Small arms, commonly known as firearms or guns, are used to kill as many as 1,000 people each day. Millions more are wounded, or their lives upended when access to development aid, markets, health, education and human rights is disrupted by people with guns.

There are more than 875 million firearms in the world, 75 per cent of them in the hands of civilians. Guns outnumber passenger vehicles by 253 million, or 29 per cent. Each year about eight million new small arms, plus 10 to 15 billion rounds of ammunition are manufactured — enough bullets to shoot every person in the world not once, but twice. The authorised international trade in small arms and ammunition exceeds US$7.1 billion each year.

[HLC]

Originally Posted by gcmc2

I am interested in your position on a householder who has no interest in guns other than to have one for protection.

I do see the practical problem of the security safe requirements making the weapon perhaps pretty hard to access in a hurry, but if we put that aside what's your opinion ?

Incidentally, a friend of mine and his son are keen shooters ( target ) and the police did lob out of the blue at their place at Kenthurst for a random check. So it does happen if anyone thinks it's just a paper threat.

I'm on the same page as flappist in regards to this.

I would be completely comfortable moving to a State in the USA where concealed-carry and home defense weapons are LEGAL.

Would I be comfortable with Australian law changing to permit that, no. I don't think I would be. On one hand I can see the benefits, and would like that, but I come from a shooting background and would equip myself with the right equipment and am a competent firearm user - see flappists post re equipment.

BUT there would be too many idiots, wannabe's and cowboys in Australia with the wrong idea and before you know it, some poor innocent person checking on their neighbor will get their head blown off. Therefore this is a bad idea and why I'm not comfortable with it.

If this country was to go down this path, and you could get a firearm for home defense, then I believe that their licence requirements should be stricter than your average sporting shooter. More shoots, more training, self defense classes with the strict understanding that FIREARMS SHOULD ALWAYS BE THE LAST OPTION when it comes to self defense, but tasers can kill people too. Where do you draw the line?

[Uncle_Ken]

Must admit I enjoyed shooting my air rifle growing up n Sydney. Love the smell and sound of real rifles (22's 243's and of course shot guns). If I see a range OS I go for a trp down memory lane. Going to the orginal post re DIY sounds dangerous to me. Whilst I enjoyed my 'gun days' I OK with my kids not having access, look at the US and shake my head. What did Mke Moore say, Canada has more gunbs than the US but less deaths?

UK

[fat4D]

Don't think the cheap $1000 3d printer would make some thing accurate enough to operate, a mate of mine just bout a proper one for a business and that was 68000 not including the shipping of the 4000kg's between the printer, scanner materials and various other essential things. Think I will be seeing what he can make for me thou

[distortion]

Fat4D - completely agree. As someone who regularly uses CAD, laser cutters, CNC's etc, I do not think some home built item could create something with both the strength AND accuracy needed to produce a decent firearm. That said, if a nasty wanted to create a 'one shot wonder' then they could, but they don't need a 3d printer to do that! It is remarkably difficult to even source metals of sufficient quality to produce something like a firearm... try getting some decent steel for a custom knife?

Regarding gun laws, I am just going through the process now (in Vic) and it is crazy difficult. So many hoops to jump through!

My personal view is that we should relax the rules on what type of long arms are available, but not the pistols (except for sporting purposes). I believe pistols are more problematic as they are so easily concealed, and tend to be attractive to the wrong people, far more than having a semi-auto rifle. Sure, check that people who want the more powerful weapons are mentally stable enough, have good health, and have a safe, but a rim fire 22 in the wrong hands can be deadly too? That said, far too much emphasis is put on the safety issue with gun laws. What about all the other dangerous items? Kids can still get fireworks, and turn them into explosives. Kids can still make sparkler bombs, and do regularly quite close to my house. Kids with half a brain and the will to, will find online how to make pretty much any explosive device they want to. They don't restrict the sale of Ammonium nitrate in cold packs, (only in bulk purchase as a raw chemical) so the potential there is insane. Machette's are also available to anyone over the age of 18 too!

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by gcmc2

I am interested in your position on a householder who has no interest in guns other than to have one for protection.

I think it should be allowed, I'd put my family first over some filthy rapist in my house. Police in my town pretty much don't exist after 5pm, they have to come from 50 minutes away as thats the closest station that is open.

If you're dumb enough to break into someones house to do wrong, the slap on the wrist from the magistrate should be the least of your worries.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by distortion

Fat4D - completely agree. As someone who regularly uses CAD, laser cutters, CNC's etc, I do not think some home built item could create something with both the strength AND accuracy needed to produce a decent firearm. That said, if a nasty wanted to create a 'one shot wonder' then they could, but they don't need a 3d printer to do that! It is remarkably difficult to even source metals of sufficient quality to produce something like a firearm... try getting some decent steel for a custom knife?

Regarding gun laws, I am just going through the process now (in Vic) and it is crazy difficult. So many hoops to jump through!

My personal view is that we should relax the rules on what type of long arms are available, but not the pistols (except for sporting purposes). I believe pistols are more problematic as they are so easily concealed, and tend to be attractive to the wrong people, far more than having a semi-auto rifle. Sure, check that people who want the more powerful weapons are mentally stable enough, have good health, and have a safe, but a rim fire 22 in the wrong hands can be deadly too? That said, far too much emphasis is put on the safety issue with gun laws. What about all the other dangerous items? Kids can still get fireworks, and turn them into explosives. Kids can still make sparkler bombs, and do regularly quite close to my house. Kids with half a brain and the will to, will find online how to make pretty much any explosive device they want to. They don't restrict the sale of Ammonium nitrate in cold packs, (only in bulk purchase as a raw chemical) so the potential there is insane. Machette's are also available to anyone over the age of 18 too!

I hate to ruin your day about the inability to obtain the raw materials but prior to 1996 (while it was still legal) there were at least 20 firearm makers in QLD alone making all sorts of thing from 50BMG sniper rifles (Jongman) capable of accurate sniping up to 2km to various Olympic class rifles (MAB), AR15s, (TGS) along with lots of others.

AAA made full and semi auto rifles, carbines and sub machine guns in a farm shed in central Tasmania.

There was a guy making Krinkovs (short AK47s) in the Gold Coast in his shed. He made a small fortune during the hand in.
Another guy in Ulverstone Tas was making and selling STEN guns (TASTEN).

Another guy in Gympie was making 30 round magazines out of plastic for Ruger Mini 14s and later for other 223rem, 303b, 308win 7.62x39, 9mm para and 45ACP.

And of course due to a loophole there were quite a number of silencer makers in South Australia who sold them only to "legitimate owners" in the same way the WA radar detectors are not sold interstate .

These are not second hand stories, I have personally owned some of all of them and have been to the various factories over the years. (N.B. I held a Cat R armourer's license that legally allowed me to possess machine guns and silencers etc.)

Going back before the 1990s our own OMC (Owen gun) and Charteris gun were designed and built in back yard sheds.

All the materials are still about and available without any restrictions whatsoever.

[cs123]

Originally Posted by flappist

I hate to ruin your day about the inability to obtain the raw materials but prior to 1996 (while it was still legal) there were at least 20 firearm makers in QLD alone

How many of those guys still exist today or have the gun laws decimated the industry?