Civilian Owned Firearms, what do we think?

[layback40]

Originally Posted by whollsee

Incorrect fil...unfortunately being able to tie your shoe laces is not a prerequisite for obtaining a drivers licence. Would be a good starting point. Double knot for a 4WD.

Well I got my learners license from the Adelaide casino. Got to have your shoes laced up to get in there!!!
There are plenty out there that you would conclude got theirs off the back of a corn flakes packet!!

[Banshee]

Damnit whollsee, I was just going to say that! And layback40, these days so many are wearing elastic or velco shoes and CAN"T tie laces...

I used to shoot regularly in competition. I was up to A grade by my 3rd year there, aiming for Master. Gave it up after the laws that were introduced in '96 as so many people showed up on weekends that I hardly got any range time.

We keep getting laws foisted upon us that make it harder to own firearms, yet none of these laws stop those who purchase on the black market. So they are really very little protection at all.

Also, for those who are unaware; you are far more likely to survive, if you are shot with a military round (&/or rifle), than civilian. This is because all milspec ammunition uses full metal jacketed projectiles, so they stay basically the same shape. Civilian & hunting ammunition is predominantly soft point, or hollow point which is designed to expand on impact & transfers much more energy to the target, causing much greater hydrostatic shock & far more damaging wounds.

If you want to kill someone, run them over. Don't shoot them. You are far more likely to get off completely, and if you are convicted the sentence is much shorter, especially if you fail the subsequent breath test & can come up with a halfway convincing story/excuse.

And yet, you don't even have to be able to read roadsigns in order to get a licence, and are never retested until you are over 80.

[GariJ]

Firearms should most definitely be restricted in some fashion and I think Australia is on the right track. There is absolutely no “need” to own a gun. Granted some people want to own them for sporting purposes etc and that’s fine as long as it’s well policed. But please don’t tell me Joe citizen “needs” a gun.

I noticed there were some comments made regarding the antiquated US constitution. When it was pencilled in a period were firearms were common place it made sense. Today? Well I’m not so sure.

There was also a comment that said something along the lines of children should be educated about firearms not have them prohibited. I don’t necessarily disagree with this but does this mean they should have access to a Barrette 50 or the like when they become an adult? I don’t think so.

Another comment was made regarding terminology in that a biro is no more of a weapon than a gun until it is deliberately used to harm someone or cause fear etc. As a bow hunter I agree with this to some extent. I don’t classify my bow as a “weapon” as it’s designed for targets not hunting. Yes it could kill a small animal but so could the biro.

Having said that lets not fool ourselves US gun laws allow for the purchase of “weapons” and firearms. The above stated 50 cal rife or automatic “firearms” are weapons. Their sole purpose is to kill or destroy. There is absolutely no need for such devices whatever name you wish to give them.

[superchicken]

Originally Posted by GariJ

Firearms should most definitely be restricted in some fashion and I think Australia is on the right track. There is absolutely no “need” to own a gun. Granted some people want to own them for sporting purposes etc and that’s fine as long as it’s well policed. But please don’t tell me Joe citizen “needs” a gun.

I noticed there were some comments made regarding the antiquated US constitution. When it was pencilled in a period were firearms were common place it made sense. Today? Well I’m not so sure.

There was also a comment that said something along the lines of children should be educated about firearms not have them prohibited. I don’t necessarily disagree with this but does this mean they should have access to a Barrette 50 or the like when they become an adult? I don’t think so.

Another comment was made regarding terminology in that a biro is no more of a weapon than a gun until it is deliberately used to harm someone or cause fear etc. As a bow hunter I agree with this to some extent. I don’t classify my bow as a “weapon” as it’s designed for targets not hunting. Yes it could kill a small animal but so could the biro.

Having said that lets not fool ourselves US gun laws allow for the purchase of “weapons” and firearms. The above stated 50 cal rife or automatic “firearms” are weapons. Their sole purpose is to kill or destroy. There is absolutely no need for such devices whatever name you wish to give them.

Well said, same argument is spoons making people fat.

Government control is government control whater the subject is.

[chris0375]

Having only recently got my gun license I must say it is significantly easier to get than a car license. A little bit of paperwork and a token "safety" meeting and you are good to go. A car license requires 3 tests and 120 hours of practice (Victoria) with a fully licensed driver. A gun license has no practical assessment at all and no mental health check either.

I doubt category a and b long arms are really that dangerous compared to guns used in USA style rampages.

[Rock God]

If you look into it our laws they are not that bad. There are quiet a few category's of licences and if you can proove to the commissioner you can pretty much own any firearm you like. I worked in the NT for a while we could carry a hand gun as we work in remote areas so its a survival aid being as I was a pilot. Professional shooters there mostly have class C I think, most have automatic's in there possession even ex-military gear don't know how legal they were.

So a law that let's you own what you require to do the job and no more seems ok to me.

[GariJ]

Originally Posted by Rock God

If you look into it our laws they are not that bad. There are quiet a few category's of licences and if you can proove to the commissioner you can pretty much own any firearm you like. I worked in the NT for a while we could carry a hand gun as we work in remote areas so its a survival aid being as I was a pilot. Professional shooters there mostly have class C I think, most have automatic's in there possession even ex-military gear don't know how legal they were.

So a law that let's you own what you require to do the job and no more seems ok to me.

Why is a hand gun a survival aid to a pilot? And why do professional shooters need automatics? Not being funny here just curious. Just looking at this as a need vs want.

On a lighter note. How many other pilots carry hand guns because I'm FIFO and no longer feel comfortable lol.