Gaznazdiak wrote:Bladeracer
I'm not suggesting that we need tighter laws, I think what we have now are too Draconian and I fear they are likely to use what's become boringly predictable in the US as a reason to persecute us even more, and I really wish people would not take a simple observation out of the context in which it was offered and decide it is a statement of blanket support for the knee-jerkers in parliament.
I agree with what we have in place already to licence owners. I consider all the rest of it to be garbage that just keeps a bunch of people employed and burns up tax money and Police resources. If somebody is not safe with a firearm then it makes no difference to their neighbours what sort of firearm that is or how much ammo it holds. It also matters not in what way and where abouts a person should be able to use a firearm once it's been decided they are not a risk to the community.
The US is a mess. Police see somebody walking down the street with an AR15, as is their right in some states. Unless the LEO has knowledge of a specific crime that has been, or is likely to be committed, (brandishing a firearm is a crime) they can't even legally require the person to identify themselves, or prove they have a firearm licence or carry permit. On the other hand, if said armed person takes charge of a motor vehicle, then they are required to identify themselves to Police on request as part of a traffic stop.
Your example is clearly not something most people would consider acceptable, but it is such a minuscule part of the big picture as to be a waste of resources to police it. The problem they have is in inter-department communication. People know who the crazy people are, but the system is so tied up in policing law-abiding people there's nothing left to address criminal activity. Modern policing (here in Australia as well) is geared toward taking the easy dollars from mr and mrs average citizen, every day, for whatever new laws are constantly being made to ensure plenty of ready income. It costs far too much money to go after criminals, and if they do catch some, it just reduces our need for even more police officers.
We know that illegal drugs and guns - and people - come into our ports with little risk of detection. We pay millions of dollars to our armed forces to train them in dealing with threats of all kinds, and when we do send them overseas, so many of their duties involve...policing illegal trafficking of arms, drugs and people. Why the hell can't we rotate our troops through our ports as part of a continual training scenario? We're already paying for them to train somewhere else anyway. Put a battalion on secondment to Border Force and keep our dock lands flooded with security personal, while at the same time providing vital real-world training to our forces.