Gun laws, the redneck image, and what we can do

[bladeracer]

This as Ive mentioned could be made available to cat B shooters by looking into changing the classification...MAYBE

The same argument is just as likely to end up with double-barrels, levers, pumps, revolver carbines, assisted-actions, etc all being moved into CatD instead...

[bigfellascott]

This convo reminds me of a radio interview recently where sam lee was waffling on about semi auto handguns and the presenter asked her what was the difference between the semi auto handgun and a revolver, she waffled on about how every time you squeeze the trigger a bullet comes out - ol mate politely pointed out the same thing happens when you do the same to the revolver

Moronic dumb f*** just doesn't have a f***ing clue yet wants it banned and revolvers are ok cos they aint semi auto what a retard!

[bladeracer]

On the subject of being "better off" if we were allowed to own and/or carry a handgun for protection, that is the argument tens of millions of Americans use and it's not working for them.

Granted, they have a different societal view, but they have a much higher per capita murder and overall crime rate than we do. The crims know there is a high probability their victim will be armed and go in tooled up.

Weapon retention that BBSS mentioned is very relevant. Panicked untrained people who attempt self defence with a weapon will in many cases have it taken from them and used against them.
One of the martial arts I studied in my younger days involved knife techniques, paramount among which were getting a knife from an attacker while unarmed and defences against that disarming.

Far better in my view would be to add self defence training to high school curricula as a mandatory subject like math and English.

Mind you, not too keen on taking on a croc with martial arts, Daddy has that right, some attackers need a bullet.

I think you are mistaken there Gaz, thousands of American citizens are alive today because they, or somebody else, had a firearm when it was needed. There is more than enough evidence to support the fact that an armed public is safer.

Even totally untrained gun owners have saved their own, and other people's lives.

Martial arts are fine in a small number of unarmed assaults, but the skill certainly does not come close to making it a fight in the defender's favour, especially when an attacker is armed. My 88-year-old auntie in Adelaide was assaulted and raped in her home by a young thug back in the eighties, no martial arts training could have helped her.

[bladeracer]

The self protection argument while valid to many, isn't one that I'm personally focussing on. I'm talking purely rec shooting.
Magnum56- while our political inclinations mightn't run directly parallel your approach to this debate certainly is.
I feel we need a total restructuring of the current gun laws that could be had by united numbers, a softened or even sympathetic public, rational factual debate and maybe some sort of compromise or 'deal' that would better for the pro's and anti's more than the current system does.
I'm not saying that nobody has tried this all I'm saying is that getting all ideas out on the table might amount to some progress.
Legendary hot rod builder Rod Hadfield from Castlemaine in Victoria, which is nearby me, convinced VicRoads it'd be a good idea to let him street register a 55 chev with a WW2 spitfire engine. That's right, that's a 27 litre 3500hp V12 Rolls Royce Merlin. Anyone into high powered cars, those numbers are gob smacking.....now it had a number plate.
Through methodical and persistent well researched debate he won, and helped set a precedent for registering heavily modified vehicles in Victoria.
I draw lots of inspiration and motivation from these kinds of people and I believe we can do the same

I couldn't agree more. Instead of wasting effort trying to design firearms that fit through the loopholes, that merely cause those loopholes to be identiied and closed, put the effort to fixing the laws. There is no relevance whatsoever to the type or caliber of the firearm. Anybody that is accepted as being safe to own and use a single-shot .22 without supervision is by definition, a responsible gun owner, and should be free to pursue their shooting endeavours with whatever tool they wish to own. .22LR is a very lethal cartridge, as at least two US presidents can vouch for, alongside many, many thousands of gang members in the US. I would hazard that more US citizens and LEO's are killed and injured by .22LR than by AR15's, by a wide margin. And yet our laws allow all of us to own .22's on the lowest level of licence.

It cannot be stressed enough, licenced owners of firearms are the largest body of our population, more than one in every twenty Australian citizens - man, woman and child, that routinely obey deliberately-onerous laws, very rarely get involved in _any_ activity that results in criminal convictions, actively prevent firearms passing into criminal hands, are very thoroughly vetted, and continuously scrutinised, for as long as they own firearms.

I'm confident it could be shown that licenced firearm owners have less criminal tendencies than the very Police that enforce the laws.

[Runnymede]

Hi Ecobogan, I have to admit that I'm of the belief that we can't "free" up our gun laws all we can do is stop them being eroded further. To my mind nothing shows the city / country divide more than the subject of firearms, as firearms to most city based people are something they aren't exposed to so are a completely foreign concept. Here in the country they are a way of life as is getting out and hunting. I just look at where I am and almost all my neighbors have firearms and hunt but we are the minority, as 80% of our population live in the big city and as our pollies cater to where the votes are....firearms don't figure apart from restricting us law abiding firearms owners further because gun ownership is "scary" to most people so should be restricted.
Now that I have depressed myself somewhat think I'll go out and undertake some fox control

[Gaznazdiak]

On the subject of being "better off" if we were allowed to own and/or carry a handgun for protection, that is the argument tens of millions of Americans use and it's not working for them.

Granted, they have a different societal view, but they have a much higher per capita murder and overall crime rate than we do. The crims know there is a high probability their victim will be armed and go in tooled up.

Weapon retention that BBSS mentioned is very relevant. Panicked untrained people who attempt self defence with a weapon will in many cases have it taken from them and used against them.
One of the martial arts I studied in my younger days involved knife techniques, paramount among which were getting a knife from an attacker while unarmed and defences against that disarming.

Far better in my view would be to add self defence training to high school curricula as a mandatory subject like math and English.

Mind you, not too keen on taking on a croc with martial arts, Daddy has that right, some attackers need a bullet.

I think you are mistaken there Gaz, thousands of American citizens are alive today because they, or somebody else, had a firearm when it was needed. There is more than enough evidence to support the fact that an armed public is safer.

Even totally untrained gun owners have saved their own, and other people's lives.

Martial arts are fine in a small number of unarmed assaults, but the skill certainly does not come close to making it a fight in the defender's favour, especially when an attacker is armed. My 88-year-old auntie in Adelaide was assaulted and raped in her home by a young thug back in the eighties, no martial arts training could have helped her.

Sorry to hear about your Aunty Blade, and you are absolutely correct, no martial arts could have helped her, but with respect, could an 88yo lady have accessed a gun and successfully used it for defence, or would it have been taken from her and used in the next attack?

You can only develop a realistic ability to defend yourself while unarmed by dedicated application of the training. I was training 7 days a week in two disciplines for nearly 10years and 3 days a week for another 14 and I have no illusions of invulnerability.

I promise I'm not wearing a lacey g-string when I say that, in the US, many many needless, preventable deaths have been caused when a gun that is only for the defence of hearth and home has been grabbed in the heat of the moment, or been accessed by a child.

Picture, if you will, an alternate Cronulla riot.
Many of those present, fearing some dangerous actions by "others", bring their Glock, Sig, Colt, S&W etc to protect themselves.

With the emotion flowing there, it is virtually certain that if some of those stirring things up had been armed, some nong would have kicked off an OK Corral.

You also have the escalation mentality that the situation creates.
If I'm going to rob a house full of people I know are virtually certain to be unarmed, I'll go alone and take a bat.
If I'm going to rob a house full of people virtually certain to be armed, then I'm going in armed to the teeth and mob handed.

It's an interesting debate.
Unfortunately, not all of us can debate it as rationally as you and I are doing.
I've been accused of all manner of personality and behavioral defects for saying that some form of gun control (beyond hitting where you aim) is essential, simply because so many people display so frequently that they shouldn't be allowed sharp pencils let alone firearms.

[bladeracer]

Sorry to hear about your Aunty Blade, and you are absolutely correct, no martial arts could have helped her, but with respect, could an 88yo lady have accessed a gun and successfully used it for defence, or would it have been taken from her and used in the next attack?

You can only develop a realistic ability to defend yourself while unarmed by dedicated application of the training. I was training 7 days a week in two disciplines for nearly 10years and 3 days a week for another 14 and I have no illusions of invulnerability.

I promise I'm not wearing a lacey g-string when I say that, in the US, many many needless, preventable deaths have been caused when a gun that is only for the defence of hearth and home has been grabbed in the heat of the moment, or been accessed by a child.

Picture, if you will, an alternate Cronulla riot.
Many of those present, fearing some dangerous actions by "others", bring their Glock, Sig, Colt, S&W etc to protect themselves.

With the emotion flowing there, it is virtually certain that if some of those stirring things up had been armed, some nong would have kicked off an OK Corral.

You also have the escalation mentality that the situation creates.
If I'm going to rob a house full of people I know are virtually certain to be unarmed, I'll go alone and take a bat.
If I'm going to rob a house full of people virtually certain to be armed, then I'm going in armed to the teeth and mob handed.

It's an interesting debate.
Unfortunately, not all of us can debate it as rationally as you and I are doing.
I've been accused of all manner of personality and behavioral defects for saying that some form of gun control (beyond hitting where you aim) is essential, simply because so many people display so frequently that they shouldn't be allowed sharp pencils let alone firearms.

The point is not whether it could have helped my Auntie Ivy, the point is that if the population had the ability to defend themselves if they choose to, there would be less chance of scumbags expecting to commit such atrocities.

Yes, high-levels of martial defence ability requires great dedication, and still leaves you sorely wanting against an armed attacker, which is not something that should be forced on the populace when it is far easier, cheaper, and quicker to simply let them arm themselves if they wish to.

Of course, there are some that manage to fall through the gaps that probably shouldn't be given the responsibility, but the simple fact is that even the morons are not causing great danger to themselves or the public, or the hospitals and morgues would be overflowing. I think it can be shown very, very clearly, that morons with guns do far less harm than morons with driver's licences do.

[Gaznazdiak]

But Blade, the idea of your Aunty having the ability have a gun for defence, on it's own, is only going to escalate the attitude of the attacker, not prevent the attack.
Think about it, you are expecting an irrational, probably meth effected, scumbag to follow the same sober, logical thought process that you or I would.
Not a lot of logical cause and effect going on in the head of someone willing to inject something cooked up in a filthy bathtub by some other random scumbag.

If this scenario worked as it is claimed, then the USA would be one of the safest place in the world to live.

It patently is not.

As to morgues, a Washington Post article from October last year reported that gunshot wound visits to hospitals cost them $2.8 billion.

It's the people with access that are the problem, not the guns. Unsecured access.

I'm no expert, I could be completely arse about. But logic, as I know it, and my experience of human nature tell me otherwise.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree on this one mate, eh?

[bigrich]

The governments have to start trusting people and not presume all of us are potential criminals and murderers we are trust worthy to be armed and send
overseas to fight and die to protect people but back home we are unworthy to protect ourselves
Ironic don't you think

the government doesn't trust us, and to a certain degree i don't trust them. call me paranoid fellas, but be very careful about what you say/ post on gun laws online as i wouldn't want to see any statements or fanciful thinking taken out of context and used in a negative way. we don't really know who we are talking to online. maybe we should get our identities verified like they do on those online dating sites , not that i've been on any of those

[bladeracer]

But Blade, the idea of your Aunty having the ability have a gun for defence, on it's own, is only going to escalate the attitude of the attacker, not prevent the attack.
Think about it, you are expecting an irrational, probably meth effected, scumbag to follow the same sober, logical thought process that you or I would.
Not a lot of logical cause and effect going on in the head of someone willing to inject something cooked up in a filthy bathtub by some other random scumbag.

If this scenario worked as it is claimed, then the USA would be one of the safest place in the world to live.

It patently is not.

As to morgues, a Washington Post article from October last year reported that gunshot wound visits to hospitals cost them $2.8 billion.

It's the people with access that are the problem, not the guns. Unsecured access.

I'm no expert, I could be completely arse about. But logic, as I know it, and my experience of human nature tell me otherwise.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree on this one mate, eh?

Defending yourself does not escalate an attack unless the attacker has no intention whatever of leaving you in peace, in which case you are far better off with the gun than without it. If you pull a firearm, most attackers come to their senses and find something else to do - situation over right there. If they can't see the sense in that then they get shot - situation over again.

The vast majority of the US is perfectly safe to live in. The places that are unsafe to live in are the same places with strict gun control.

[Bent Arrow]

Thanks mate that's a very good point.2 shot semi-auto 12g would have some application on sporting clays and duck shooting, the reduced recoil would be beneficial to some people with medical issues.

Semi auto 12g is already an option for club clay shooting if you can demonstrate a need (i.e. altered recoil for medical reasons).

[bigrich]

hey blade, i agree with ya. there are a lot of idiots who shouldn't be allowed to have a drivers license

[Ziad]

Blade mate here I disagree with you. While sure in America some crime has not happened due to personal protection, but it's mostly obvious that it hasn't stopped crime. I would guess crime rate in australia is lower than America (even per capita), what do you think? Do you think There the is higher chance of crime with firearms in USA than australia?, and some could easily argue that's cuz general public doesn't have easy access to firearms.

In australia we have regulations regarding safe storage of firearms and ammunition. So considering the regulations, if a criminal enters my house. I have to quickly go find my safe keys and the ammo compartment keys. Then go open the safe, get the ammo out. Then load the ammo in the magazine, then go looking for this criminal. I reckon it will take 5 to 10mins. And let me guess if we had personal protection the criminals would come looking for me first. Tie me up or even shoot me, while I am looking for my ammo keys.

Anyway back to the policies,I think most of the rest are very good mate.

[bigrich]

But Blade, the idea of your Aunty having the ability have a gun for defence, on it's own, is only going to escalate the attitude of the attacker, not prevent the attack.
Think about it, you are expecting an irrational, probably meth effected, scumbag to follow the same sober, logical thought process that you or I would.
Not a lot of logical cause and effect going on in the head of someone willing to inject something cooked up in a filthy bathtub by some other random scumbag.

If this scenario worked as it is claimed, then the USA would be one of the safest place in the world to live.

It patently is not.

As to morgues, a Washington Post article from October last year reported that gunshot wound visits to hospitals cost them $2.8 billion.

It's the people with access that are the problem, not the guns. Unsecured access.

I'm no expert, I could be completely arse about. But logic, as I know it, and my experience of human nature tell me otherwise.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree on this one mate, eh?

Defending yourself does not escalate an attack unless the attacker has no intention whatever of leaving you in peace, in which case you are far better off with the gun than without it. If you pull a firearm, most attackers come to their senses and find something else to do - situation over right there. If they can't see the sense in that then they get shot - situation over again.

The vast majority of the US is perfectly safe to live in. The places that are unsafe to live in are the same places with strict gun control.

the problem with using firearms on a scumbag in self defense is revenge and ongoing feud by survivors or relatives." violence begets violence" is a saying with some truth to it. the martins and macoys were at it for about 80 years i think. "he dun kilt ma pappy so i gunna kilt 'im dead too " i saw feuding between meathead groups of bogans when i was younger ,and if some of these idiots had access to firearms there would have bin carnage

[Bigjobss]

Thanks mate that's a very good point.2 shot semi-auto 12g would have some application on sporting clays and duck shooting, the reduced recoil would be beneficial to some people with medical issues.

Semi auto 12g is already an option for club clay shooting if you can demonstrate a need (i.e. altered recoil for medical reasons).

That is correct.
Loosening the requirement to demonstrate a need would allow more people to gain access that whilst not "needing" it would benefit them. Being overly recoil shy, junior shooters, having a borderline medical condition etc.

[Ecobogan]

Thanks mate that's a very good point. The vast bulk of the shooting I do is rabbits, foxes and hares with a 10 shot CZ453
Not even a week ago a hare came into the yard, this is a six acre yard. I took aim and shot it...the hare was moving slightly and I missed a kill shot. It was knocked down, got up sat there stunned for a second then took off. Damn! I took off after it and it stopped at the fence, this time a lot further away. I managed to get in a second shot and it was dead.
It occurred to me that a 2 shot semi auto having a near instant follow up shot would probably have put it down in the first instance.
I then got to thinking... could that be a thing?
A friend down the road who's an avid deer hunter agrees. Yes we could all be a better shot and I practice pretty much everyday hitting the head of a batten screw at 50m with 6-7/10 hits and want to keep getting better.
Truth is we don't always get it right and an instant follow up shot may just prevent a wounded animal escaping.
It was just an idea which is why I put it to you guys....maybe the double barrel rifle or others are the way to go
Ecobogan

If you stood and watched it without being prepared for a second shot, a semi-auto wouldn't have made any difference.
The advantage of semi-auto is it always has a second shot ready to go, but if you aren't ready to take that shot you might as well have a single-shot rifle.
Every time you pull the trigger, cycle the action immediately and get back on the sights in case the animal gets up again.

Disagree. At least in the hare instance as I still had the scope on it.Youre no doubt right in most other situations but in that one , and a few others, if I had a choice of a bolt, lever or pump, or a 2 shot semi.....?
It's been clearly shown to me however that it probably wouldn't be mechanically untamperable on a number of levels and politically near possible....I just had to make sure on that by asking here.
And prob more interested in a 22 version first up anyway, no recoil to upset post shot sighting and all that.
It can, as bladeracer pointed out, also politically backfire completely and get the spotlight pointed at a variety cat B's and get them cat D'd.
I've had some interesting chats about wounded prey escaping with some animals rights activists that I know. Painting a similar scenario to the hare one they, after a 'Well people are going to hunt anyway' speil from me they felt a semi auto would be better and preferred it (not that they're shooters though)....not something I expected.
I'm going to think more on a double barrel and be quiet about it now.
I would however like thank y'all for actively chewing this through...smart minds. I got my answer in 24hrs. Cheers guys

[bladeracer]

Blade mate here I disagree with you. While sure in America some crime has not happened due to personal protection, but it's mostly obvious that it hasn't stopped crime. I would guess crime rate in australia is lower than America (even per capita), what do you think? Do you think There the is higher chance of crime with firearms in USA than australia?, and some could easily argue that's cuz general public doesn't have easy access to firearms.

In australia we have regulations regarding safe storage of firearms and ammunition. So considering the regulations, if a criminal enters my house. I have to quickly go find my safe keys and the ammo compartment keys. Then go open the safe, get the ammo out. Then load the ammo in the magazine, then go looking for this criminal. I reckon it will take 5 to 10mins. And let me guess if we had personal protection the criminals would come looking for me first. Tie me up or even shoot me, while I am looking for my ammo keys.

Anyway back to the policies,I think most of the rest are very good mate.

Why would it matter if crime is committed with guns rather than knives or cars? Crime is crime, we should be allowed to defend ourselves from all of it.

If we had laws allowing us to be armed your firearm wouldn't be in a safe...

[bigrich]

Blade mate here I disagree with you. While sure in America some crime has not happened due to personal protection, but it's mostly obvious that it hasn't stopped crime. I would guess crime rate in australia is lower than America (even per capita), what do you think? Do you think There the is higher chance of crime with firearms in USA than australia?, and some could easily argue that's cuz general public doesn't have easy access to firearms.

In australia we have regulations regarding safe storage of firearms and ammunition. So considering the regulations, if a criminal enters my house. I have to quickly go find my safe keys and the ammo compartment keys. Then go open the safe, get the ammo out. Then load the ammo in the magazine, then go looking for this criminal. I reckon it will take 5 to 10mins. And let me guess if we had personal protection the criminals would come looking for me first. Tie me up or even shoot me, while I am looking for my ammo keys.

Anyway back to the policies,I think most of the rest are very good mate.

Why would it matter if crime is committed with guns rather than knives or cars? Crime is crime, we should be allowed to defend ourselves from all of it.

If we had laws allowing us to be armed your firearm wouldn't be in a safe...

maybe that's true blade. but unfortuately we are not america. we don't have the right to bear arms, we can own or use them at the authorities discretion.which can be changed by legislation . self defense is subject to the interpretation of "reasonable force". i'm not saying this is right or fair, i agree with the SFFP policies. there are two sides to every story but, and the possibility's of having a blood feud over a "lawful" killing are real. maybe a heap of us should just pack up and move to the USA