New firearms restrictions proposal (TAS)

[Gwion]

unless your a criminal you dont need guns in aus for self defence, unless the indonesians invade.

use a short sword its quieter

seriously tho, it removes the accidental shootings. and prevents the school shootings which mean that we can still have guns. more shooting of people = more restrictions.

keeping your firearms locked up means they don't get stolen as easy which considering the cost is also a bonus.

I have no issue storing my firearms in a safe but having to keep bolt separate, magazine unloaded, etc. is a real drag. Not from a self defense point of view but from a practical point of view. More than once i have missed a chance at feral cats wandering across my back paddock because it is such a bloody process to unlock two doors, fit the bolt, load the ammo.......
I would never store a loaded gun but a few rounds in a mag and the bolt already in would make life a hell of a lot easier sometimes.

While i'm not part of the WE NEED GUNS FOR SELF DEFENCE brigade, i will pick up on your comments by saying we have never had a school shooting and the history of mass shootings in Australia is well dominated by the government shooting indigenous people. There have been a total of exactly BUGGER ALL mass shootings in Australia; so that argument is mute. If you look into the real figures of firearms violence in Australia, it is almost (not quite) entirely the domain of the "underworld" types who are not, in any way, constrained by any form of firearms laws or regulations.

[TheGreenwolf]

yep i can see how that would slow you down, just like taking photos of animals...theres a hawk, get the camera out, where is the lense and battery...yea its gone now.

i do remember a few mass (more than 4 ppl is the usual term) shootings and a few sieges when i was growing up then they put in the first set of laws and all was good until that tossbag in tas shot those people and screwed it up for everyone.

i dont agree with all the laws but generally the storage is a good one (even if the wording of it sucks and having to bolt it to the floor is a bit retarded). if nothing else for things like when that little boy shot his 4 year old neighbor in the us recently...things like that.

i guess the worst part of these laws tho is the lack of consultation so that the laws put forward are sensible...like the appearance law etc.

[Diesel]

I have no issue storing my firearms in a safe but having to keep bolt separate, magazine unloaded, etc. is a real drag. Not from a self defense point of view but from a practical point of view. More than once i have missed a chance at feral cats wandering across my back paddock because it is such a bloody process to unlock two doors, fit the bolt, load the ammo.......
I would never store a loaded gun but a few rounds in a mag and the bolt already in would make life a hell of a lot easier sometimes.

There is no requirement to remove the bolt in Tasmania.

However, until required to by law, we never locked firearms away, never had an issue nor any thefts. Accidental shootings were never a factor either as we were educated and familiarised with firearms from a very young age.

There is no way to prevent firearm thefts, the original intent was simply to keep firearms out of the hands of those who weren't competent to use them, for which a stout cupboard(or locked rack) was more than sufficient and stll is does in hundreds, if not thousands of homes across the state.

The general rule, amongst those who willingly engage in theft, is if you come across a gunsafe or normal safe back out(without anyone knowing you have been there if possible) and on sell the information up the chain. The majority of the successful thefts are extremely well planned by competent patient career criminals and are never solved.

Every time we give an inch we slowly erode our overall freedoms. A big "trade off" for agreeing to increased storage requirements was a two week wait for firearms for a category where a licence holder already has them- well we know know why they agreed to it. They didn't legislate it and it has now blown out to a six week wait regardless, their reasoning- "it only states the minimum wait, not maximum".

A basic rule of negotiation is to never automatically agree to anything nor speak in favour of negative changes, it hasn't got us very far since 1996, by all means correct me if you can think of an instance.

I think this is the point Genisis is trying to get across, accepting change has got us nowhere nor will it. Speaking for tighter restrictions won't help us, only "them" by giving "their" views credibility. There is nothing good for the shooter about harder storage laws.

[Daddybang]

unless your a criminal you dont need guns in aus for self defence, unless the indonesians invade.

use a short sword its quieter

seriously tho, it removes the accidental shootings. and prevents the school shootings which mean that we can still have guns. more shooting of people = more restrictions.

keeping your firearms locked up means they don't get stolen as easy which considering the cost is also a bonus.

I have no issue storing my firearms in a safe but having to keep bolt separate, magazine unloaded, etc. is a real drag. Not from a self defense point of view but from a practical point of view. More than once i have missed a chance at feral cats wandering across my back paddock because it is such a bloody process to unlock two doors, fit the bolt, load the ammo.......
I would never store a loaded gun but a few rounds in a mag and the bolt already in would make life a hell of a lot easier sometimes.

While i'm not part of the WE NEED GUNS FOR SELF DEFENCE brigade, i will pick up on your comments by saying we have never had a school shooting and the history of mass shootings in Australia is well dominated by the government shooting indigenous people. There have been a total of exactly BUGGER ALL mass shootings in Australia; so that argument is mute. If you look into the real figures of firearms violence in Australia, it is almost (not quite) entirely the domain of the "underworld" types who are not, in any way, constrained by any form of firearms laws or regulations.

Without getting into the whole storage debate I would suggest that you Google Sanderson high school darwin 1988 you may want to change your comments on school shootings. . This event was my first day of high school.

[Gwion]

Well, ok. While this is obviously a tragic event involving firearms and a school it was not what is usually termed a 'school shooting' or a 'mass shooting'. One person was killed by their estranged fiancée.

[Gwion]

There is no requirement to remove the bolt in Tasmania.

Having re-read the relevant parts of the Act, it seems i stand corrected on this point. I must have been mixing up the transport requirements with the storage requirements.

Thanks for the correction because that will save a bit of space in my ammo lock up and the pain of grabbing the wrong bolt from time to time.

[Tripod]

also no need to remove bolt for transport if it is in a locked gunbox.

[Gwion]

Not convinced of that one. Trigger/action lock and bolt in or no trigger/action lock and bolt separate. Must be in closed container.

[Tripod]

I asked the local copper when he came to do an inspection, It made sense since he would probably be the one to pull me over.

[Gwion]

So container must be locked? Hard case? Fixed to vehicle?

Think I'll still play it safe and keep the bolt with my ammo.

[Tripod]

My gunbox is fixed to the ute and locked when there is a rifle in it.

[duncan61]

We always bolt a gun safe in the trailer as we stop at a roadhouse on the way there and back and it means we can all go in and feed our faces at the same time and no one has to wait by the car

[Jandamurra]

@ The Greenwold and Gwion
I have no idea why some people want to go around deciding on others' behalf what they do and do not need.
If I was a small business owner on the Gold Coast, I may feel the need to carry a handgun or two. Tough luck for me, of course. Unlike politicians, ordinary members of the public can't decide they need a gun for self-defence and then easily obtain one.
How do we know any gun-toting politicians actually need a gun for self-defence?
I know in my hypothetical example above I said "feel" the need for a gun, which is not the same as objectively having a need. However, the two things could very well coincide and I have a hard time understanding how someone else can decide for someone whether they need a gun or not-on what basis-feelings?
Some feelings are more equal than others.
Is there any hard data about accident reductions resulting from the 1996 laws?
I look at high gun control hell holes like Brazil and South Africa. Their intentional homicide rates are extraordinary and it's only common sense that their gun accident rates would also be through the roof.
Look here-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate .
As for the blaming one gentle, mentally-challenged man for a crime that required planning and inside knowledge, we should al be long past that by now.
One brief problem among many-the false drug stash that turned out to be washing powder (unless it wasn't?).
-First ever in the area
-It happened to be a radio dead spot; how convenient
- If Martin Bryant did this all on his own, to my knowledge there is no placing of this activity in the official timeline. When did he plant the washing powder, when did he find the opportunity that day to make a phone call to Nubeena Police Station? Funny how no-one saw him in a phone booth and there is no mention that he had a mobile phone that day.
-Also funny how no recording of the phone call was ever released. Wouldn't this be quite useful in persuading the public of his guilt?
The issues with 28/4/1996 simply can't be dodged, however much the government wants people to forget about it and deride anyone who asks questions as a conspiracy theorist.