Will semi-auto's come back

[Yelp]

Fiction:
More guns = more death
The USA has a high rate of ownership and also a high rate of homicide. They are mutually exclusive, it is the gang culture plain and simple, other countries with very high firearm ownership rates DONT have similar levels of killing....

Canada is a perfect example.

Tonnes of guns, shares a border with the USA. None of the problems of the USA.

[Warrigul]

Semi-autos never went away! you just need to have a genuine reason. If you have a genuine reason, get a category C or D. Using firearms are a privilege in this country, they were never a right. The laws are based around genuine need because that's simply sensible. Australians are sensible. Americans are not.

That's not very pragmatic,

Better ban all the FPV and HDT V8's etc as there is no sensible reason to have them.(more people die due to high speed motoring accidents than ever have died through firearm misuse).

It is like banning erect penises simply because a few will be used in rape cases and you will only have a genuine need for one when you want kids.

A bit illogical when you think of it, it is not the object that breaks the law, if that were the case we would lock up the gun/knife/car/rat poison etc etc etc and let the user go free.

[bluerob]

As I say, I believe there needs to be a MAJOR push in the media, highlighting the benefits of being involved in firearms whether for target or hunting. The hunting aspect would have to be handled very carefully. I vaguely remember a fishing identity having some dramas with some of the vision he once had. Greenies went berko.

I'm hoping that Gun Control Australia slowly disappears and we can have something like this one day - www.mgshooters.com

Perceptions account for a lot amongst the voting public. If our elected representatives combined with an effective media campaign to dispel the arguments that Gun Control Australia constantly use (perceptions guys, perceptions) against us, then gun owners may start to get more ground back.

You only have to read the various firearm association publications to see how ridiculous the laws are. There are 100's of articles that discuss the nonsensical attitude adopted.

A simple example. There's a limit of .38 calibre for the majority of hand gun owners, unless you have the permit for larger calibre's. A .357 magnum falls under .38 calibre. I bet the person who came up with this idea knew a lot about calibre's.....

A number of club members and farmer mates have asked me to reload for them. I have the time and I'm happy to help them out, plus, my press knocks 1000 rounds an hour out. If they give me the bits and I hand them back ready to go (zero $ profit for me), I'm considered to be a dealer and need to have the permits in place. This requires me to start a business. That's not as easy as it sounds either. So, can't help out the others and the guys either have to buy a press or come over to my place and use my press. Sure, I could "do it on the quiet," but, I'm not interested in a criminal charge and I don't need to assist Gun Control Australia in having our sport destroyed.

1000 voters won't account for a lot, but, how many people in Australia love their sport and want change?

[Norton]

As I say, I believe there needs to be a MAJOR push in the media, highlighting the benefits of being involved in firearms whether for target or hunting.

Yeah good luck with that.

I can't think of a media outlet that would touch that with a 10 foot pole.

Much easier to manufacture drama and sell it with there usual negative outlook.

[Lyam]

I can't think of a media outlet that would touch that with a 10 foot pole.

I'd mostly agree with that.

Only places like the SSAA mag will publish this kind of stuff and I think they're view by a lot of people as "pro gun", and I mean "pro-gun" in the negative, stereotypical sense.

Sad.

[bluerob]

What about Shooters & Fishers Party.

I think this is the avenue, with support from all associations, not just the SSAA.

Here's hoping anyways.

[WesleySnipes]

What about Shooters & Fishers Party.

I think this is the avenue, with support from all associations, not just the SSAA.

Here's hoping anyways.

I believe you're correct mate. We're going to achieve nothing unless we unite under one banner and get serious about the problem. Educate the people that are irrationally scared of firearms, most of the people calling for tighter restrictions haven't even fired a firearm, let alone seen one. And the fact is they've probably never been to a farm or the country where a firearm is an essential tool. All they see is on the media who spews out disinformation about guns leading to crime and never bothering to address the real problem causing the violence, which are the criminal scumbags pulling the trigger.

The fact is, firearms are never going to go, and restricting them to the honest and law abiding people who want to be a apart of the rich, fun and fulfilling firearms community is never going to work, in fact it would be stupid to even suggest that it would. And in a day and age when you can't turn on the radio without hearing of a rape, a murder or some other heinous criminal act, I would like a fighting chance against the criminals if myself or my family are ever unfortunate enough to be in that situation. There have been too many shootings in my area, all of which related to gang and criminal violence, not a licensed target shooter. Self defence is an inalienable and natural right. Removing the antlers from the antelope never did help it when it's getting shredded to pieces by a natural predator, in fact the opposite is true.

And anyone who begs for tighter gun control will be wishing they didn't when a group of criminals bangs down the door and proceeds to do what criminals do. Education leads to safety, not restriction. Proof is in the pudding, just look at Switzerland.

[Norty_Country_Bloke]

With my firearm wet dream being a Ruger Mini 14 Ranch rifle in .223Rem, here's hoping! But, is it really necessary for the average Joe? I do think that there should be a sand line drawn between a semi-auto rimfire and centrefire though. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that even the once in a blue moon, crazed gunman is going to achieve bugger all with a 10/22 compared to Mini 14, AR, AK variant in a larger centrefire calibre. In my opinion, a semi-automatic rimfire rifle should be a Cat B firearm. And centres should remain as they currently are.

[WesleySnipes]

With my firearm wet dream being a Ruger Mini 14 Ranch rifle in .223Rem, here's hoping! But, is it really necessary for the average Joe? I do think that there should be a sand line drawn between a semi-auto rimfire and centrefire though. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that even the once in a blue moon, crazed gunman is going to achieve bugger all with a 10/22 compared to Mini 14, AR, AK variant in a larger centrefire calibre. In my opinion, a semi-automatic rimfire rifle should be a Cat B firearm. And centres should remain as they currently are.

How many things you own are necessary? Probably not many, but it's your right to have them if you're not taking away anyone else's rights.

I'm amazed at people who actually believe that any law whatsoever would of changed the outcome of Port Arthur, he got the guns illegally, and proceeded to murder 35 people. You cannot legislate insanity.

And because of this I'm also amazed that people think it's okay for the government to take away firearms from 100's of thousands of good people because of one mad man that broke the law anyway. If we applied this to any other aspect of today's life we would be sitting in a blank room, with nothing due to everything being banned. Fork? Check, has been used to assault and kill. Lamp? Check, has been used to bludgeon someone to death. TV? Check, someone has been electrocuted or crushed.

Wouldn't make for a very comfortable existence now would it. I have never broken a law and never intend to, and own firearms, does this make me a criminal? Nope. I follow the law and expect to get treated accordingly.

[Vati]

With my firearm wet dream being a Ruger Mini 14 Ranch rifle in .223Rem, here's hoping! But, is it really necessary for the average Joe? I do think that there should be a sand line drawn between a semi-auto rimfire and centrefire though.

I agree with Wesleys comment - it's your right to have them if you're not taking away anyone else's rights.

How many things in your life to you 'need' in the survival sense of the word. The following arguments could be made.

You could stab someone with a knife. That's not solved by saying people don't need cutlery and making people eat with their hands.

You could run someone over with your care. That's not solved by saying people don't need cars and making them walk.

People get electrocuted, burned, killed by faulty wiring. That's not solved by saying people don't need it and can live in the dark and cold.

Of course no one is arguing for these things.. That would ridiculous. When it comes to firearms though "necessity" is suddenly everything.

It's a convenient excuse when it comes to firearms, not a logically sound reason.

[halberg]

With my firearm wet dream being a Ruger Mini 14 Ranch rifle in .223Rem, here's hoping! But, is it really necessary for the average Joe? I do think that there should be a sand line drawn between a semi-auto rimfire and centrefire though.

That's your line in the sand.

Ask your average Greens supporter and they'll say you don't "need" any firearm at all.

You wouldn't have a single shot .22 if it was up to them, let alone your dream rifle.

This is where the drawing the line based on "need" alone falls over.

[Norty_Country_Bloke]

I'm not saying that any of the legislation/buy-back post PAM was right. I do believe that as law abiding citizens, it is our right to own what we want. I was more trying to push the point that wider availability of semi automatic firearms would be easy with just rimfires as a jumping off point. Personally I'm all for semi automatic centres. I think there was some confusion on my stance on the subject. Poor wording on my part.

[halberg]

I was more trying to push the point that wider availability of semi automatic firearms would be easy with just rimfires as a jumping off point.

Yeah agree with that. Small steps to get the process started.

[Vati]

It's all good.

Wasn't having a go, just discussing...

[Norty_Country_Bloke]

No worries. Baby steps, aye

[southeast varmiter]

Mentioned it in another post. There is a UN agenda (will find the link) to disarm citizens globally, they plan to do this through treaties moving forward.. The greens and other lefties are entrenched in the politics behind this. US is the impossible chestnut to crack. Not without a civil war.

[Title_II]

Hi guys,

I know this is a bit of a tender subject for some. The reason I ask if I read these things like pest numbers getting out of control in NSW.

Everyone always refers to American shooting rates blah blah blah except it's clear we have a hugely different gun culture here.

If you want 9000 murders in America, there is only one way to get there. One at a time. Only about 100 murders per year in the US are exacerbated by semiautos (mostly handguns), and 6000 a year no gun is used at all. Semiautos have nothing to do with it.

I sure hope so. I don't think we need to go through how criminalizing 99.9% of the law abiding firearms because one bloke (who even had noted mental health issues mind you) killed 35 people is not exactly freedom...

And whoever brings up America usually looks at the number of gun homicides in total. Per capita from memory they are ranked 24 in the world for gun homicides as opposed to the fact they are number 1 in the world for private firearm ownership. And a majority of said gun murders can be linked to drug and gang fuelled violence, much like here. It seems there is a shooting in Western Sydney every few weeks and they obviously won't be abiding by the law if they're shooting in the first place.

Going from memory, we are actually rated somewhere around 175th to 225th (I forget the number), in the bottom half of countries.

Fiction:
More guns = more death
The USA has a high rate of ownership and also a high rate of homicide. They are mutually exclusive, it is the gang culture plain and simple, other countries with very high firearm ownership rates DONT have similar levels of killing....

Canada is a perfect example.

Tonnes of guns, shares a border with the USA. None of the problems of the USA.

Probably around 80% of the people in the US have a lower murder rate than Canada. You are probably safer visiting here. 12% of the people (blacks) are responsible for over half the people murdered, and obviously it's even a much smaller subset of them that is at risk.

Just so you guys understand, I'm not pushing some sort of agenda here or complaining that my country is not being fairly treated. That's a given I'm just trying to inform a little bit, since the liberal media and the UN like to push an anti-gun agenda and misrepresent the US as the prime example.

[GLS_1956]

I would hope that you in Australia would regain the ability, I'd like to say Right but I'm unsure if that would be correct, to own semi-automatic firearms. You have to understand that for me, someone born in the year 1956 and the State of Oklahoma, the idea of showing a need in order to exercise a right, any right not just one related to gun ownership, is abhorrent.

Our Constitution was written by men who'd suffered under an unjust tyranny and wished to protect their future nation from the same fate. But even as the original was a good start it was recognized that it had its short comings and thus lead to the Original Ten Amendments, better known as The Bill of Rights. We have had many attempt to limit our rights, thankfully they keep running up against the Constitution. So bothersome to these people is the Constitution that they strive to convince the American people that the Constitution is outdated, or that it does not say that which it does. Our present President has negotiated with the UN to give up American Citizens Rights, in order to follow a Global Government agenda. Thankfully for us, and the U.S. the U.S. Senate had refused to ratify these treaties.

[<<Genesis93>>]

So the logical mechanism to fix the problem in the USA, titleII, .... would be to remove the problem, to 'deport' that 12% and then the murder rate would collapse, overnight. I would never seriously suggest it, as the 12% who adamantly identify themselves primarily as 'African' then American, have zero association with the African continent, probably about zero cultural connection for the most part, would never support such an idea.

It seems either the USA is fully in denial of the 'facts', I have discussed the racial specific murder rates elsewhere, or the media has done a most successful job of whitewashing this reality...

As far as deporting the slaves(back in the day) I'm sure I read somewhere that lincoln had suggested returning them to Africa as a way of ending slavery or somethingorother....maybe it was someone else of note.... but imagine what your country would like like today..

We WILL have our rights returned to us (as opposed to the privilege today) as far as ownership of firearms by lawful bona fide people, but I'm afraid it would take a serious SHTF episode for the 'legislators' to say "Hey, lets very quickly rethink this...."

[GLS_1956]

So the logical mechanism to fix the problem in the USA, titleII, .... would be to remove the problem, to 'deport' that 12% and then the murder rate would collapse, overnight. I would never seriously suggest it, as the 12% who adamantly identify themselves primarily as 'African' then American, have zero association with the African continent, probably about zero cultural connection for the most part, would never support such an idea.

It seems either the USA is fully in denial of the 'facts', I have discussed the racial specific murder rates elsewhere, or the media has done a most successful job of whitewashing this reality...

As far as deporting the slaves(back in the day) I'm sure I read somewhere that lincoln had suggested returning them to Africa as a way of ending slavery or somethingorother....maybe it was someone else of note.... but imagine what your country would like like today..

We WILL have our rights returned to us (as opposed to the privilege today) as far as ownership of firearms by lawful bona fide people, but I'm afraid it would take a serious SHTF episode for the 'legislators' to say "Hey, lets very quickly rethink this...."

It is not a race thing. I'm white as can be, my genealogy is all West Europe and British Isles. It is all social political, for years, decades really, people have been indoctrinated to think that they are victims, that they should be rewarded for not working, and that life has no value, read that as abortion on demand.

Understand that in America most violent crimes are kept within the victims' and victimizers' own race.

[<<Genesis93>>]

I'm not saying you're making it a race thing, it IS.
Whether its black on black or white on white, it is what it is.

Yes, we are a pacified, distracted self deprecating society, who are all victims or potential victims who willingly give up their freedoms for an ounce of supposed security.

Welcome Proletaria - the Communist utopia

[pomemax]

It makes me laugh the gun debate in America it always comes down to the 2nd amendment the right to bare arms .
ok Obama says
1) ban the sale of ammunition you still have your Arms what you going to put in it .
2)Make the permit system to get a Firearm of any type compulsory to prove safety/competence then you can get a firearm 2nd has not been violated just delayed they didn't stop anyone (UNLESS They are unfit to have ) once this is in place they can dictate what type you can have by your training level.
If you think in America the federal government does not have the power to do that they probably do not but no more federal funding till you do that's what they done here.
Here's a point you may not have thought of I bet its already written up somewhere in the government what laws they want and how to implement then the laws in Australia were implemented after port Arthur in Tasmania in april 1996 then in the same year the national firearms agreement was brought in to being NO government on this planet moves that quick unless you talking ussr or china most of the agreement was written in 1986 by the Australian Bureau of criminal statics just hangin round for an excuse.
As for the cop out of its Black or Hispanic or any other type of ethnic issue that's utter B/S and its a play by media to ramp up fears about firearms in the hands of other types of people. ( demonising I think its called)
This african american or scottish american or any other type of american has ONE COMMON DENOMINATOR they are American . end of rant
As for semi autos coming back in Australia did they all leave they are still here just the level of training and the need must be shown
Training for pistol semi auto i have a few in the safes and get your collectors for any rifle in semiauto you just need level 9 security in nsw ,when I used to take a semi auto hunting I can never recall using it for more than 1 shot at a time ( the first gun i bought was a .22 semi auto aged 12 from kmart ) believe me they are overrated in a hunting situation

[happyhunter]

Americans will always get to keep their guns because they fight to keep them. Australians will never get to legally own self loading rifles except under special circumstances because Australians freely give up their rights. Simple as that.

[<<Genesis93>>]

Really, it is quite simple...

the USA was built on rebelling against the Empire....
Aus was built by the Empire...as a place to store the unwanted; the dregs of society.

so the USA wanted to be armed in case the government wanted to go all 'tyrannical'... again....
while Australians, you're all crims, you lost your rights.... and we've accepted that position for over 200 years..

Its quite depressing, actually, as citizens of a dominion, we are inherently (in theory) protected by the regent by way of the the King's or the Queens's peace - which the peace officers (AKA the 'police') are duty bound to enforce, which means the protection of the Citizens - that is their job, to 'protect' us...

In reality, most people, including the police, think their job is to fine (not necessarily stop) speeding motorists and write reports AFTER a crime has been perpetrated...... what a joke, the joke is on us though........................................ they can not protect the citizens, and the citizens are not allowed to effectively protect themselves.

[The Warrigal]

I think that there is reasonable prospect of getting restrictions eased on .22 calbre semi-auto rifles along with pump action and semi-auto shotguns if we persist in lobbying for such an easing of restrictions.

The above arms are effective at only tens of metres and were, prior to 1996, common place choices or sporting shooters and others who use guns for recreational purposes.

It will almost certainly take very much longer to see any similar easing of restrictions on centre fire semi-auto rifles, but even the longest journey commences with the first step.

Access to weapons for self-defence is another important area which we continue to present a weak and divided front on and to our own peril I believe.

Again it's a case of baby steps, so we should be lobbying for capsicum sprays to be removed from the prohibited firearm category and recognised as non-lethal self-defence options which by rights should be reasonably easy for the responsible citizen to own and carry.

I am an optimist and I have lived to see gun laws and official policy towards firearms restrictions change several times in my own life time.

And fairly often, as in 1973 in NSW, saw those attitudes ans laws change for the better.

When I was lad before 1973, I remember being told that never, ever, not in a million years would the Government ease the long standing restrictions on all rifles arbitrarily classified as "military," yet in 1973 the New South Wales Government, even though it introduced the shooters license that year, removed those very restrictions.

Prior to 1988 Governments were on public record as saying that they held no objection to citizens keeping long arms for household defence or any objection to granting handgun carry permits for those with an occupational or other demonstrated good reason for wanting to be armed.

Permits of the latter class were not issued easily, but they were very definitely granted to members of the public.

Also prior to 1988 New South Wales Courts had consistently ruled that unless a weapon was expressly prohibited in NSW, the self-defence constituted lawful excuse for the carriage of said weapon.

And yet now I am told that weapon carry was "never" a part of the Australian cultural scene!

[<<Genesis93>>]

Prior to 1988 Governments were on public record as saying that they held no objection to citizens keeping long arms for household defence or any objection to granting handgun carry permits for those with an occupational or other demonstrated good reason for wanting to be armed.

Permits of the latter class were not issued easily, but they were very definitely granted to members of the public.

Also prior to 1988 New South Wales Courts had consistently ruled that unless a weapon was expressly prohibited in NSW, the self-defence constituted lawful excuse for the carriage of said weapon.

And yet now I am told that weapon carry was "never" a part of the Australian cultural scene!

I'd be very interested to find that on a record, on a hansard perhaps.....?? Any idea who may have said it?
Not doubting you, but such a quote / quotes / policy reference would be quite useful

[brett1868]

Permits of the latter class were not issued easily, but they were very definitely granted to members of the public.

Yep, lots of hoops to jump through but possible...This is a scan of my 1A class pistol license from 88' which I maintained for several years.

1A.JPG (88.7 KiB) Viewed 5797 times

[The Warrigal]

Hi Genesis.

It's a long time ago, like 1970's or early 1980's but I do recall senior NSW Government Ministers stating in relation to people keeping long arms for home defence words to the effect of:

"If people want to keep rifles to protect themselves from burglars. We have no problem with that sort of thing."

[southeast varmiter]

Again. This will be rejected by lefties as it does not fit the narrative.

[Heckler303]

Again. This will be rejected by lefties as it does not fit the narrative.

Doesn't anything that make sense get rejected by lefties anyway?