Semi auto vs bolt, lever, pump actions.

[Member-Deleted]

I was going to make this comment in the post re converting a 10/22 to straight pull, but I thought it would be better suited here as it is a political article.

There are firearm owners who don't like semi autos, nothing wrong with this, it is a personal choice, there are also many firearm owners who do like, and would like to have the option of using a semi auto for recreational hunting, again a personal choice.

There is much debate from both camps as to the need for a semi auto, I don't want to get into that here, my point is, that the only difference between a semi auto and a manually operated repeating type firearm is the action. Regardless of the type of action, all types of firearms are inanimate objects, incapable of doing anything by themselves without human input.

This brings me to the main point of this post, the human factor, as a licensed firearm owner who has been vetted and checked out by the authorities, and deemed to be a fit and proper person to own/possess/use a firearm, such a person is considered to be of suitable character and qualities to be trusted with a firearm. It would be reasonable to assume that such a person would be highly likely to obey the law, history and the statistics show this to be the case.

So take an LFO possessing a bolt action, as against an LFO possessing a semi auto, the only thing that changes, is the type of inanimate object, their disposition and attitude towards committing an offence or otherwise has not essentially changed, they are still the same person, that person who the authorities deem to be responsible.

To use an analogy, if I have a ball peen hammer and then buy a claw hammer, the only thing that changes is the type of inanimate object, my state of mind is not altered, I just have a different tool for a different job. This is what the authorities can't seem to grasp, however I would suggest it is more a case of they don't want to get it.

Given the mountains of facts, statistics and history that show that a firearm, regardless of the type, in the hands of a law abiding person, is no real threat to the safety and security of the public, the decisions of governments to restrict/ban certain types of firearms, is more based on political expediency, rather than any concern for public safety.

[southeast varmiter]

When you try to bring data, facts and commonsense to the firearms discussion with the powers that be..... You fail.

[AusTac]

Id love to own a semi!

Although theres a little more involved in clearing them, i've seen people check safe, pull the cocking handle, remove the barrel, check, refit barrel, flick the action forward, take a sight picture and boom, lucky it was a blank. But that was just negligence.

And they can be a little more difficult for others to tell when they arn't loaded, but a chamber flag combats this

People are afraid but really as has been said a firearm is just a tube and some metal no different to any othee action

[<<Genesis93>>]

All irrelevant, when the Police and the antis have a clearly stated agenda; to reduce the number of guns in society, without any distinction between lawfully possess/unlawfully possessed OR remove all firearms, as the case may be.

The facts are on the historical record, for example the reductions in firearm homicide and suicide represented trends established well before 96...while every discussion concerning the supposed success of the 96 laws starts AT 96 figures..... the fact that non-firearm homicide increased after 96, the fact that we NOW have more suicide than before 96, not to mention that the registration system and PTA process hasnt been shown to have prevented a single homicide or other serious firearm crime....

Then its only the police and antis who are given a voice by the media and governments...

I'd like a semi too!.... but not to hunt with - to defend myself, my family and if needs be my people. and that can only be effectively done, in my opinion with a self loader.....

Actually....I'll have a few semiauto 22s for plinknig and bunny busting...and I'll have some AR15s and FALs also for hunting, only because were getting them back..... right? Can someone put a date on this impending return of sense, logic intelligence and trust to our law making machine??

[happyhunter]

I don't want to get into that here, my point is, that the only difference between a semi auto and a manually operated repeating type firearm is the action.

Not sure if you have ever owned a self loader but there is more than just that. The difference is the ability to make a follow up shot without disturbing your firing position. For shotguns there is less recoil with a self loader. Same for center fire rifles. Many fine quality rifles and shotguns are not available to own legally and this is a travesty. A colt AR15 would make a great fox gun. A 10/22 is a pleasure to hunt rabbits with. The Browning BAR in 30-06 is a sweet deer rifle.

Before the bans there was no mystique to semi autos. You could walk into you local Kmart or Mckewans and buy one from the sporting section. So far, in 40 years of shooting I am yet to meet anybody that doesn't like the idea of semi auto firearms so I don;t know where that statement comes from.

[Member-Deleted]

I don't want to get into that here, my point is, that the only difference between a semi auto and a manually operated repeating type firearm is the action.

Not sure if you have ever owned a self loader but there is more than just that. .

Yeah mate I have owned a couple over the years, and would own them again if given the opportunity, like you I have found they are invaluable when hunting in thick scrub and or where game is in large numbers.

The part of my post that you highlighted was put there because there are many varying views on semi autos, some like them, some don't, even if I did not like them, I would still fight for the right of other to have one if they chose to.

Our problem is the political posturing and games being played by the politicians and bureaucrats, at our expense, LFO's need to get political if they want to stop the erosion of what conditions we have left, I am aiming a fair bit higher, I would like to see the NFA and many of the resulting impositions removed all together.

About the only things that should be kept are SENSIBLE storage requirements, (even some of the existing need reworking to be more practical) and shooter licensing, (not firearm registration).

[Member-Deleted]

Can someone put a date on this impending return of sense, logic intelligence and trust to our law making machine??

Mate, that is a really good question, the answer is, not while the place is full of professional politicians, to many of the bludgers, they look upon their political positions as a career, therefore will do what it takes to keep their spot, including lying and distorting the facts to suit their own needs.
Many of our politicians have never run a business or managed a budget, some have either never had any other job, or have had limited exposure to the workforce, we need people who have been there done that, so to speak, in politics, people who don't look on their term in parliament as a career.

[Member-Deleted]

When you try to bring data, facts and commonsense to the firearms discussion with the powers that be..... You fail.

Ha ha, yeah, it is a bit like that, it is scary to think that these people who claim to represent us, seem to feel common sense is irrelevant.

[<<Genesis93>>]

Can someone put a date on this impending return of sense, logic intelligence and trust to our law making machine??

Mate, that is a really good question, the answer is, not while the place is full of professional politicians, to many of the bludgers, they look upon their political positions as a career, therefore will do what it takes to keep their spot, including lying and distorting the facts to suit their own needs.
Many of our politicians have never run a business or managed a budget, some have either never had any other job, or have had limited exposure to the workforce, we need people who have been there done that, so to speak, in politics, people who don't look on their term in parliament as a career.

so..... this is the launch of your political campaign??
Nothing wrong with.....

[happyhunter]

The uncomfortable fact is that it is law enforcement that requested the prohibition of semi automatic weapons and wants more restrictions. This was happening well before any massacres occured. The public servents we pay to enforce law and order seem to believe that maintaining and widening a power inbalance between them and the public is essentail to maintaining some type of community safety, when in reality the only safety they are concerned with is that of their own members.

[<<Genesis93>>]

You know what happyhunter..... You're making some sense there...

The sheeple are entertained with their farcebook, twatter, faux breaking news and distractive current affeirs.....who's doing who today??!!.... while 'they' slowly and surely chip away at our freedoms....

The thing is with the Po-lees.... they probably dont even realise what and why they wear the badge.... they even swear an oath to uphold the Queens peace..... thats effectively to PROTECT you and I..... nothin more - nothing less , and definitively NOT to (solely) enforce the revenue raising for the 'state'....

If you suggested to the po po the above you'd probably get a smack in the mouth or at best a snigger.... when it comes to firearms.... they see them as an oh&s issue, therefore the less the better they say, ideally, they would like to see NO firearms in the community. I believe that if anyone was to ask the cheif commish what the 'ideal' number of firearm in the community would be he/she would answer ZERO....

[AusTac]

It suits them for civillians to have no firearms but when s**t hits the fan the police armourys will be bare walls..

[<<Genesis93>>]

It suits them for civillians to have no firearms but when s**t hits the fan the police armourys will be bare walls..

the po po nor the govt could not care less about shtf, it would never happen they think, we were never invades by a foreign force, the aps never entered Sydney Harbour, neither bombed northern Oz.... our concern however should more so relate to the tyrannical gov, WHICH WE HAVE TODAY! unless of course farcebook / twitter / no borders free the refugees movement tells you otherwise....

If/when the SHTF the police will be fine (as far as theyre concerned) safe with their M&P40s, mp5s from the armouries....but dont worry... Kim Kardashian got the norks out again over there>>

[AusTac]

haha maybe i should have worded that differently i'm not the ( the irish are a comin' ) type, was more getting at if no firearms are in the community what are they going to control us with, i mean a police officer is just someone who has authority over us at the moment by means of force ( weapons ) and shear size that they can hunt you down with

[Title_II]

This brings me to the main point of this post, the human factor, as a licensed firearm owner who has been vetted and checked out by the authorities, and deemed to be a fit and proper person to own/possess/use a firearm, such a person is considered to be of suitable character and qualities to be trusted with a firearm. It would be reasonable to assume that such a person would be highly likely to obey the law, history and the statistics show this to be the case.

When exactly did the Oz politicians license the Sambar to carry a rack and maul you with it in defense? Which states or territories vetted the snake before giving him the license to carry and use deadly toxins?

[GLS_1956]

I have all three types of actions listed plus single shots and Member-Deleted is correct. The only difference is mechanical/appearance, the type of action makes no difference in lethality. The war that caused the greatest number of American casualties, our Civil War 1861-1865, was for the most part fought with muzzle loading single shot rifles, over 200,000 direct combat and 750,000 total.

[Vichandgunner]

Police are not the issue. Policy makers are. Many police couldn't care less how many/what type of guns a licensed shooter owns. Many are shooters themselves.

If you are going to get shirty when GCA make up sweeping generalizations and stereotypes about gun owners, why are you making similar sweeping statements about all police?

[AusC]

Because aaaall police are just bastards who love to spend their time giving people speeding tickets

[<<Genesis93>>]

Police are not the issue. Policy makers are. Many police couldn't care less how many/what type of guns a licensed shooter owns. Many are shooters themselves.

If you are going to get shirty when GCA make up sweeping generalizations and stereotypes about gun owners, why are you making similar sweeping statements about all police?

Officer 'Smith'....

We dont need 'all' police officers to be biased against guns, or more so 'guns owned by law abiding citizens', all we need is the top brass to form that opinion and take it to the minister who unfortunately, without fail it would seem, feels compelled to accept the advice as from the experts and it is generally converted into law.

In this land police EFFECTIVELY legislate on firearms.

The police policy is to reduce the numbers of firearms in the community.
YOU, as an organisation make no distinction between the legally or illegally held firearm. Now - you want the numbers reduced. Eventually - you want all guns removed from the community.

Yes, we've all heard the "I'm not against guns, just doing my job" argument....It doesnt wash anymore... indeed, it hasnt washed since the Nuremberg Trails when the "I was just following orders" defence wash quashed.

[happyhunter]

Police are not the issue. Policy makers are. Many police couldn't care less how many/what type of guns a licensed shooter owns. Many are shooters themselves.

If you are going to get shirty when GCA make up sweeping generalizations and stereotypes about gun owners, why are you making similar sweeping statements about all police?

..and some police are hitman (hi Roger and Paul), same are abolone poachers and others hunt illegally in national parks.. so what's your point?

Oh yeah, and some are commisioners who are pushing hard for gun tighter gun control. Take firearms admin out of the hands of police as they only have one mentality and that is restrict, prohibit and control.

[Vichandgunner]

Officer 'Smith'....

We dont need 'all' police officers to be biased against guns, or more so 'guns owned by law abiding citizens', all we need is the top brass to form that opinion and take it to the minister who unfortunately, without fail it would seem, feels compelled to accept the advice as from the experts and it is generally converted into law.

In this land police EFFECTIVELY legislate on firearms.

The police policy is to reduce the numbers of firearms in the community.
YOU, as an organisation make no distinction between the legally or illegally held firearm. Now - you want the numbers reduced. Eventually - you want all guns removed from the community.

Yes, we've all heard the "I'm not against guns, just doing my job" argument....It doesnt wash anymore... indeed, it hasnt washed since the Nuremberg Trails when the "I was just following orders" defence wash quashed.

I'm not here to get in an argument, just don't agree with the amount of anti-police sentiment I feel exists in the community, I feel it's counter productive to our aims.

I'm not a cop, know a few though, and wouldn't mind looking at joining up.

I certainly don't want all guns removed from the community, I love shooting. So do most of the cops I know. If police policy was aimed at removing guns from us, they wouldn't be approving record numbers of licenses and PTA's.

My point is simply that you jump on the generalizations that anti-gunners make, but you seem to keep on falling into the trap of making the same generalizations yourself. Direct your anger somewhere it will make a difference - local members. Ranking police command members have a lot of input, but pollies listen to their voting base above all else.

Also, comparing Aussie police with Nazi war criminals? Hope you don't really think that way.

[MalleeFarmer]

I agree with much of what has been stated. I do not believe that public safety is at all the reasoning behind gun control. I do however believe public safety is a selling point for gun control. (And my golly it worked in 96 didn't it)

I think gun control is about population control an unarmed populace are not citizens they are slaves.

I personally don't want a semi for my current needs. I would definately want one to protect my home (wife and two young kids) from a home invader and my fellow Aussies for the government/invasion but that's exactly why I can't have one!

[Vichandgunner]

I agree, they aren't doing it for public safety in the slightest.

Not 100% sold that it's population control though, seems more like a quick easy way to win votes.

Also a supporter of self defence and castle doctrine.

[happyhunter]

I have all three types of actions listed plus single shots and Member-Deleted is correct. The only difference is mechanical/appearance, the type of action makes no difference in lethality. The war that caused the greatest number of American casualties, our Civil War 1861-1865, was for the most part fought with muzzle loading single shot rifles, over 200,000 direct combat and 750,000 total.

That's an interesting statistic that debunks the fear whipped up on modern technology. From the FBI's own data, the cartridge that tops the list for civilian deaths each year is the 22LR and the 38 special and 40 S&W tops the list for killing LEOs.

There's a stat that says in Australia, the rifle most often used in crime is the Stirling Model 20, and that was 20 years after the ban on semiautos. Ironically, most are sawn off and won't cycle due to lack of back pressure. Kmart must have sold a bucket load of them.

[<<Genesis93>>]

Officer 'Smith'....

We dont need 'all' police officers to be biased against guns, or more so 'guns owned by law abiding citizens', all we need is the top brass to form that opinion and take it to the minister who unfortunately, without fail it would seem, feels compelled to accept the advice as from the experts and it is generally converted into law.

In this land police EFFECTIVELY legislate on firearms.

The police policy is to reduce the numbers of firearms in the community.
YOU, as an organisation make no distinction between the legally or illegally held firearm. Now - you want the numbers reduced. Eventually - you want all guns removed from the community.

Yes, we've all heard the "I'm not against guns, just doing my job" argument....It doesnt wash anymore... indeed, it hasnt washed since the Nuremberg Trails when the "I was just following orders" defence wash quashed.

I'm not here to get in an argument, just don't agree with the amount of anti-police sentiment I feel exists in the community, I feel it's counter productive to our aims.

I'm not a cop, know a few though, and wouldn't mind looking at joining up.

I certainly don't want all guns removed from the community, I love shooting. So do most of the cops I know. If police policy was aimed at removing guns from us, they wouldn't be approving record numbers of licenses and PTA's.

My point is simply that you jump on the generalizations that anti-gunners make, but you seem to keep on falling into the trap of making the same generalizations yourself. Direct your anger somewhere it will make a difference - local members. Ranking police command members have a lot of input, but pollies listen to their voting base above all else.

Also, comparing Aussie police with Nazi war criminals? Hope you don't really think that way.

Correction, FUTURE officer Smith

You're misunderstanding the reflection of official police position in relation to firearm - with ill feeling. The Various police 'forces' have their position on the record, including in the Senate inquiry report. They want less number of firearms IN THE COMMUNITY and they see those firearm as a "health and safety" .... even the legally possessed firearm that spend most of their time safely locked away when not in use.....I hope you understand that many shooters have no ill feeling toward the police officers, but see this bias as a huge conflict of interest and therefore they should not only not be knocking on doors of responsible law abiding members of the community at any 'reasonable' hour, but further to that that should have NOTHING to do with licensing. Period.

You're funny. You think the record numbers of PTAs are perhaps the result of the police 'encouraging' lawful firearm possession? Or perhaps their generosity at approving so many?? ITS THE RESULT OF INCREASING NUMBERS OF SHOOTERS! That concerns 'command'....as much as it does the tards...

Your best comment was "but pollies listen to their voting base above all else."....... of course they do. Something tells me you'll make a good cop one day....

Who mentioned Nazis? I referred to an outcome of the trials.

So what shooting do you do? or did you ust ump on to defend the 'brotherhood'....

Oh, and

[happyhunter]

Officer 'Smith'....

We dont need 'all' police officers to be biased against guns, or more so 'guns owned by law abiding citizens', all we need is the top brass to form that opinion and take it to the minister who unfortunately, without fail it would seem, feels compelled to accept the advice as from the experts and it is generally converted into law.

In this land police EFFECTIVELY legislate on firearms.

The police policy is to reduce the numbers of firearms in the community.
YOU, as an organisation make no distinction between the legally or illegally held firearm. Now - you want the numbers reduced. Eventually - you want all guns removed from the community.

Yes, we've all heard the "I'm not against guns, just doing my job" argument....It doesnt wash anymore... indeed, it hasnt washed since the Nuremberg Trails when the "I was just following orders" defence wash quashed.

I'm not here to get in an argument, just don't agree with the amount of anti-police sentiment I feel exists in the community, I feel it's counter productive to our aims.

I'm not a cop, know a few though, and wouldn't mind looking at joining up.

I certainly don't want all guns removed from the community, I love shooting. So do most of the cops I know. If police policy was aimed at removing guns from us, they wouldn't be approving record numbers of licenses and PTA's.

My point is simply that you jump on the generalizations that anti-gunners make, but you seem to keep on falling into the trap of making the same generalizations yourself. Direct your anger somewhere it will make a difference - local members. Ranking police command members have a lot of input, but pollies listen to their voting base above all else.

Also, comparing Aussie police with Nazi war criminals? Hope you don't really think that way.

I think you are confusing the "police" as refered to as the organisation and not the individuals who obviously come from all walks of life and have their own ideas on all sorts of things. I'm sure we all know individuals who are members.

[AusTac]

Everyone has a car and therefore are a normal everyday posession everyones used to, when something goes wrong ( old guy makes a drive through of a shop front ) the driver is blamed as they should be and they their license is reviewed etc etc

A firearm whatever sort,action,caliber it is really arn't isn't something the younger generation hasen't grown up with ( myself included ), all the people who have crept into the law making positions only see firearms as killing tools, i mean thats ultimately why police/security guards/ money in transit officers are issued with handguns right? As such they are so narrow minded and obsessively focused on controlling said firearms they can't see the bigger picture.

Kinda off topic, but yeah

[Vichandgunner]

Correction, FUTURE officer Smith

You're misunderstanding the reflection of official police position in relation to firearm - with ill feeling. The Various police 'forces' have their position on the record, including in the Senate inquiry report. They want less number of firearms IN THE COMMUNITY and they see those firearm as a "health and safety" .... even the legally possessed firearm that spend most of their time safely locked away when not in use.....I hope you understand that many shooters have no ill feeling toward the police officers, but see this bias as a huge conflict of interest and therefore they should not only not be knocking on doors of responsible law abiding members of the community at any 'reasonable' hour, but further to that that should have NOTHING to do with licensing. Period.

You're funny. You think the record numbers of PTAs are perhaps the result of the police 'encouraging' lawful firearm possession? Or perhaps their generosity at approving so many?? ITS THE RESULT OF INCREASING NUMBERS OF SHOOTERS! That concerns 'command'....as much as it does the tards...

Your best comment was "but pollies listen to their voting base above all else."....... of course they do. Something tells me you'll make a good cop one day....

Who mentioned Nazis? I referred to an outcome of the trials.

So what shooting do you do? or did you ust ump on to defend the 'brotherhood'....

Oh, and

You know what, fair enough, I can see where you're coming from with the conflict of interest. Point to you.

No, I don't think it's a sign of them encouraging firearm possession, I never said anything like that. My point was just that they aren't providing a barrier to new shooters or gun owners beyond the scope of the already existing restrictive laws.

Dont see what that has to do with making a good cop. My point is there's lots of shooters. Show the pollies how much we can swing the vote and they may start to listen.

You mentioned the trials, I'm saying it's not really comparable, with Police, from my point of view, not committing gross crimes against humanity. I understand that you have differing views regarding safe inspections and that's cool. World would be boring if we all agreed.

As my name would tend to suggest... Shoot Cat H in Victoria, don't have an A/B license as it doesn't interest me as much.

[VICHunter]

I think you are confusing the "police" as refered to as the organisation and not the individuals who obviously come from all walks of life and have their own ideas on all sorts of things. I'm sure we all know individuals who are members.

There are members here who've said they're cops. A few of them are with us

[Title_II]

Officer 'Smith'....

We dont need 'all' police officers to be biased against guns, or more so 'guns owned by law abiding citizens', all we need is the top brass to form that opinion and take it to the minister who unfortunately, without fail it would seem, feels compelled to accept the advice as from the experts and it is generally converted into law.

In this land police EFFECTIVELY legislate on firearms.

The police policy is to reduce the numbers of firearms in the community.
YOU, as an organisation make no distinction between the legally or illegally held firearm. Now - you want the numbers reduced. Eventually - you want all guns removed from the community.

Yes, we've all heard the "I'm not against guns, just doing my job" argument....It doesnt wash anymore... indeed, it hasnt washed since the Nuremberg Trails when the "I was just following orders" defence wash quashed.

I'm not here to get in an argument, just don't agree with the amount of anti-police sentiment I feel exists in the community, I feel it's counter productive to our aims.

I'm not a cop, know a few though, and wouldn't mind looking at joining up.

I certainly don't want all guns removed from the community, I love shooting. So do most of the cops I know. If police policy was aimed at removing guns from us, they wouldn't be approving record numbers of licenses and PTA's.

My point is simply that you jump on the generalizations that anti-gunners make, but you seem to keep on falling into the trap of making the same generalizations yourself. Direct your anger somewhere it will make a difference - local members. Ranking police command members have a lot of input, but pollies listen to their voting base above all else.

Also, comparing Aussie police with Nazi war criminals? Hope you don't really think that way.

No sacred cows.

People need to be held accountable. Will they hold you accountable as a licensed firearms owner? You bet your bottom.

When the government tries to oppress you, hold them accountable. Don't let them pass the buck, and sure as heck don't give them a pass. Every one of them is accountable. From top to bottom.