Shooters and Fishers Party MPs Daniel Young, Jeff Bourman ta

[juststarting]

(source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/shooters-and-fishers-party-mps-daniel-young-jeff-bourman-take-gun-junkets-to-us/news-story/8c70112ba0e911eb14d9b0ac4f0c4905)

Shooters and Fishers Party MPs Daniel Young, Jeff Bourman take gun junkets to US


GUN-loving politicians have come under fire for shooting semiautomatic weapons and visiting gun shows during taxpayer-funded junkets to the United States.

Shooters and Fishers Party MP Daniel Young appea­red on American television speaking out against Australia’s firearm laws, describing the 1996 buyback as “a theft of all our guns”.

He and colleague Jeff Bourman took separate taxpayer-funded “study tours” to America this year to research potential changes to gun legislation in Victoria.

Mr Young shared photos and videos of himself using semiautomatic weapons online when visiting firearm manufacturers in Wyoming in May.

In one clip he tells an American reporter the Port Arthur massacre, in which 35 people were killed by Martin Bryant, was “quite a horrific event”.

“But as a result, our government stepped in and basically took everything that was a semiautomatic or higher category off of the everyday people,” he said.

“We called it a theft of all our guns. We had everything taken off of us involuntarily.”

Mr Bourman took a similar month-long tour in January, which included visiting gun shows and travelling to Texas to learn about laws ­allowing Americans to carry concealed weapons.

He also met with representatives from the controversial Dallas Safari Club, which came under fire for auctioning a $350,000 permit to hunt a black rhino last year.

Both USA tours were paid for out of the members’ electoral office budgets.

Alannah & Madeline Foundation CEO Lesley Podesta said “semiautomatic weapons have no place in our community”.

“Recent events in the US have shown exactly why strong gun laws are so imp­ortant,” she said.

“This year marks 20 years since Port Arthur. Our country is safer because of the ­actions taken by John Howard and Tim Fischer to ban semiautomatic weapons.”

Mr Young defended his comments and the trips made by the Victorian Shooters and Fishers Party.

“There will always be people who do not agree with our agenda,” he said. “I do regard 1996 as the theft of guns from owners. It was a punishment for someone else’s crime.”

Greens leader Greg Barber urged Victorians to speak up if they objected to their money being used for similar tours in the future.

“Now that it’s out in the open, the taxpayers will form their own view on whether this was a good use of their money,” he said.

In response to the clueless (Greg Barber) about forming my own opinion and giving money to SFP, I have one thing to say:

[bladeracer]

Are we allowed to object to taxpayers money being used to buy guns off Australians just to be destroyed?

[99problems]

Am I the only shooter that doesn't believe our guns laws to be such a bad thing? I'd rather they concentrate on keeping areas such as state forests open to hunting etc.

[Noisydad]

Might time for some more swarming of social media I think.

[bigfellascott]

Sounds like fun, I hope they do a report and how the things shot and how many of em we need here!

[bladeracer]

Am I the only shooter that doesn't believe our guns laws to be such a bad thing? I'd rather they concentrate on keeping areas such as state forests open to hunting etc.

I agree with having laws about who should _not_ have access to firearms (as opposed to deciding who should be allowed), but our current system is just a _massive_ waste of money that achieves little.
I just read a report recently about Police wanting to crack down on "illegal firearms", not firearms used for criminal activities though. They want to crack down on unregistered firearms that are only "illegal" by virtue of their being unregistered. The vast majority of unregistered firearms are not used for criminal activities and are not owned by people with criminal intent. They're mainly owned by people on farms and in the outback, people that would never show up on Police radar, but the Police want to target them purely because they own firearms that aren't registered into the system.
When Police announce they've taken some "illegal firearms off the streets", usually the only thing "illegal" about them is that they aren't registered. If they told us they were taking firearms off the streets that were used to commit crimes against people, they'd rarely have anything to announce.
The current system is designed to turn legal firearms owners into criminals purely because somebody wrote a law, nothing to do with whether people have any criminal intent whatsoever.
Loss of licence, fines, confiscation of legally-owned property all because an officer found a .223 round in somebody's car?
You want to share your _legal recreational activity_ with close family or friends on your own private property? Nope, it's illegal to even allow them to _handle_ your firearm or any ammunition, unless you're happy to drive to an approved range for the pleasure of allowing your father or wife or child to get a feel for that rifle you get so much enjoyment out of. That's even if you have no intention allowing them to shoot it. If your kids are under eleven-years-old it's illegal _under any circumstances_ for them to ever handle a firearm or ammunition outside of WA.
That is not how a proper legal system is supposed to work in my opinion.

Spending hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars to buy old, rarely-used firearms off legal owners, then spends millions more to destroy them with little regard for their worth to collectors, historians or enthusiasts, just to have many of those people then go out and buy newer firearms that they might actually enjoy using more than the crappy single-shot .22 with the broken stock and no front sight that sat forgotten in the cupboard for thirty years was an absolute travesty committed against Australians by one wanker with a personal phobia. If they had then sold those confiscated legal firearms to those of us that remained involved in firearms they would've recouped some of the costs, and still achieved their "stated" goal of removing unlicenced firearms from the community by registering them into the hands of licenced shooters, supported firearms owners that are more than happy to comply with the laws, and supported the firearms industry at the same time. Howard's actual goal though was always nothing more than destroying a huge stack of firearms simply because they were firearms, with no regard at all for whether any of them had been used in crime or were ever likely to be.
That is not how a proper political system is supposed to work in my opinion either.

I owned semi-auto rifles and pump-action shotguns when I was a kid and had an absolute blast with them. I got that entirely out of my system so I really don't hanker to own them these days (although I'd love another M1 Carbine just for the fun of it). I also enjoyed shooting IPSC pistols for many years and eventually got bored with that so I don't especially need handguns these days either. But I would never try to prevent a future generation from being allowed to experience what I've enjoyed.

[sandgroperbill]

Agreed...


...but I'm in the choir

[wade06]

Am I the only shooter that doesn't believe our guns laws to be such a bad thing? I'd rather they concentrate on keeping areas such as state forests open to hunting etc.

I'm with you. I think a few of our laws are silly (semi auto rimfire, suppressors, pump action shot guns, paintball, airsoft) but we aren't to far from where most people want it.

Some shooters will no doubt want full access to semi autos and handguns but 95% of gun owners i know (mainly farmers) think our laws are good and work well.

[doc]

It appears that over the past few decades there has been a constant increase in the ways authorities are targeting standard civilians over real criminals, and it's not just firearm holders...

http://motorbikewriter.com/police-sting ... ntrapment/

Over regulation, and more concern about policing (targeting) every day people over real criminals is sadly creating a wider gap between the police and the public.

Another unfortunate side effect is more people no longer caring about the law and deciding for themselves which law they will follow. This is inevitable when the government starts making ridiculous laws that infringe on freedom of people - such as bladeracer has pointed out. (Such as in you can't even let someone pass you your ammo on your own farm), or expecting cars to not overtake on a single white line whilst following bicyclists on places like the great ocean road (where a 'legal' overtake opportunity may not present itself for 20 minutes if you go strictly by the law)...

[bladeracer]

Am I the only shooter that doesn't believe our guns laws to be such a bad thing? I'd rather they concentrate on keeping areas such as state forests open to hunting etc.

I'm with you. I think a few of our laws are silly (semi auto rimfire, suppressors, pump action shot guns, paintball, airsoft) but we aren't to far from where most people want it.

Some shooters will no doubt want full access to semi autos and handguns but 95% of gun owners i know (mainly farmers) think our laws are good and work well.

Do those same people think the laws didn't work well when we all had semi-auto's?
I'm not sure handgun laws changed much at all, getting a handgun licence now seems to be exactly the same as it was in 1990 when I got mine.