Yeah. We even have a "Shooters Party" which hold the balance of power in my state and have been successful in allowing hunting to be carried out in State Forests and National Parks.Originally Posted by Hollis
Highly restrictive gun laws do work. It doesn't stop organised crimes but what it does do is make it extremely hard for a person to go on a shooting rampage. Unless you knew people with shady connections I doubt a normal person would be able to source a firearm without the police finding out about it.
The time period in my state from applying for a license and owning your own firearm I think if memory serves me correct is about 3 months. It is therefore safe to assume that the risk of a mass shooting been carried about is a lot lower then the US.
^^^ That is what I was getting at when I said This:Like LD I am one of the last people to try and use another country to debate the issues about firearms going on here. I meant no offense to you or Australia. <<< This is in answer to your remark:
Not so much a pro-gun lobby to the extent of the NRA, but the Sporting Shooters Association is probably the largest association of pro gun owners.
Here is what the SSAA itself has say about lobbying:Shooting clubs have existed in Australia since the mid-19th century. They are mainly concerned with protecting the viability of hunting, collecting and target shooting sports, rather than keeping firearms for self-defence as in the USA. Australian shooters regard their sport as under permanent threat from increasingly restrictive legislation. They argue that they have been made scapegoats by politicians, the media, and anti-gun activists for the acts of criminals who generally use illegal firearms. Their researchers have found scant evidence that increasing restrictions have improved public safety, despite the high costs and severe regulatory barriers imposed on shooters in Australia.
The largest organisation of firearms owners is the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia, with over 120,000 members (2009 figures).[72] SSAA state branches are responsible for lobbying on local issues, while SSAA National addresses Federal legislation and international issues. SSAA National has non-government organisation (NGO) status at the United Nations and is a founding member of The World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities (WFSA), which also has NGO status. SSAA National have a number of people working in research and lobbying roles. In 2008, they appointed journalist and media manager Tim Bannister as Federal Parliamentary lobbyist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol..._organisations
http://www.ssaa.org.au/research/2009...n-lobbies.htmlThe pro- and anti-gun lobbies
An excerpt from SSAA National’s 2009 A Journalist’s Guide to Firearms and the Shooting Sports
Who are the pro- and anti-gun lobbies in Australia?
The ‘gun lobby’
Is there such a thing as the ‘gun lobby’ and if so, who are they and what do they do? While there is no formalised pro-gun lobbying group within Australia, the SSAA is proud to say that it acts as a contact group for its 120,000-plus members and lobbies at all levels of government to ensure positive, sensible legislation that affects its members. There is nothing unusual about a group representing tens of thousands of Australians talking to policymakers; in fact, this is common practice.
Other smaller shooting groups within Australia, within a combined total membership of approximately 40,000 members, include Pistol Australia, Australian Clay Target Association (ACTA), International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC), Australian Deer Association (ADA), Safari Club International (SCI) and Field and Game Federation of Australia (FGDA). Representatives from the SSAA, along with members of the National Firearms Dealers and Traders Council, other shooting groups and various distributors and importers, talk to government representatives regarding legislation, current trends and national and international issues.
The SSAA also sits on the Sporting Shooters and Firearms Advisory Council (SSFAC). The organisation was consulted by the Minister for Justice and Customs in late 2002 specifically to provide advice to the Australian Government in the development of the Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG) Handgun Reforms. Other members of the SSFAC include representatives from smaller firearms associations, the National Dealers and Traders Association, Historical Arms Collectors Council of Australia, National Farmers Federation (NFF), the security industry, film armourers, firearms importers, exporters, manufacturers and dealers. Together, all of these groups make up Australia’s unofficial ‘gun lobby’.
The media should be wary of small fringe shooting organisations that like to make headlines, but do not represent the majority of shooters. Proper research is the key here.
The SSAA is also a full member of the international lobby group, the World Forum on the Future of Sports Shooting (WFSA) and the Pacific Shooting Sports Forum. The SSAA, as previously mentioned, has official Non-Government Organisation (NGO) status within the United Nations.
The anti-gun lobby
The two main opponents of legal recreational shooting in Australia are Melbourne-based Gun Control Australia (GCA) and Sydney-based National Coalition for Gun Control (NCGC). According to Gun Control Australia’s website, and its leader John Crook, the organisation is “a voluntary non-profit organisation, which is committed to raising awareness about the gun problem, the gun lobby and issues associated with gun control in Australia”. It has been active since 1981. The National Coalition for Gun Control formed in 1992. It has no website or public contact details and does not solicit public membership. People associated with NCGC include Roland Browne and Samantha Lee.
The Australian Greens have also now started to adopt personal anti-firearm ownership policies. They are calling for the total prohibition of possession and use of handguns and for further tightening of the gun laws that were introduced in 1996.
Last edited by T.Cruiser; 08-04-2012 at 10:25 PM.
I support the Australian licensing system. I have issues with the inabiliy to get semi autos, but do i need one. No. I can get a class C pretty easy for our farm if i want one. So the only restriction on me is centre fire semi autos. Did we have them prior to the ban, yes a 22 semi, do we still have it. Yes.
Prior to the gun licensing coming in there were too many retards with guns. There i said it.
Having had guns stolen and recovered the licensing system is a good thing. But we don't have the 2nd amendment. Don't go at Cruiser, his points are essentially correct. Using our system as a comparison isn't drawing a straight line.
There is an element here saying ban all guns as then there won't be any guns, but recently the "crims" have simply been posting handguns to Australia. Simple eh? The police, hopefully, have moved beyond this and starting to target the crims from their criminal activities, rather than trying to stop them getting access to firearms.
Handguns were restricted in the 60s and we simply don't have the gun culture of the US. Therefore, only recently have home invasions with firearms really been seen as "common". As above its normally drug or similar related. The concept of a wapon for home defense reasons here is not seen as valid.
About 10 years back a guy "broke into a house as a joke, but got the wrong house" (i know right), the owner got up and shot him in the stomach with a 243. He wasn't convicted, but here shooting an intruder isn't seen as a reason, as we don't have castle type laws.
I owned both S/A rifles and shotguns which I surrendered in the first buyback. I surrendered all my pistols in the second buyback.
No I dont have a right to own them.
Yes it hurt.
Yes I made a profit.
No I don't lose sleep over it.
Yes, I think it helps by restricting the pool of firearms that could be subject to theft in break and enters.
No I dont think it affected criminal elements greatly.
No it did nothing to target the importation of illegal firearms.
No, we have not had a mass shooting here since Port Arthur. (1996 - Pre-ban)
Coincedental or cause and effect?............Who knows.
Know quite a few people with guns in their wardrobes/uner the bed. I don't need one, don't want one. Like to walk around knowing most people don't either.
I personally do not know anyone really in Australia who has a serious issue with the buyback or with concerns of gun crime in Australia...
To what I can tell most Crimes are not involving firearms and when they are it is the occassional holdup or intercriminal Violence...
Like others have said comparison between countries is faulty at best so I would advise anyone against it and as Linedoggie said, other Peoples laws their choice....
What I would add to much of this issue is that I imagine if one needs a gun to make themself feel safe then they are indeed living in an area with serious problems, and the issue in my own personal opinion is not solved by upping the firepower stakes but looking at solutions closer to the root of the problem, whether they be that of overall criminality, gangs, drugs, break down in moral and social fabric etc... The problem with those is they are bigger issues and while solving them is far more effective then simple 'solutions' they are subsequently harder and take more patience also
Good points. I would hope people feel secure enough to not have to own a firearm. For me I just enjoy ownership and shooting and the whole sport. In the States, it is a highly volatile political issue. I don't see common sense coming for either side. The anit-gun nuts do not trust the pro-gun nuts, and the pro-nuts feel the same about the anti-gun nuts. Politics in the states is reducing something to it's simplest aspect while ignoring all the major factors.
See I can't agree with that notion that if you feel the need to own a gun in a neighborhood that it's a problem with said neighborhood. Here in San Diego we've had a jump in break-ins in high-class neighborhoods. I'm talking Rancho Santa Fe, one of the most expensive areas to live in the US. Granted, a spike in crime in one area could be the work of one burglar. However, if the criminals start to become overconfident, that's when home-invasions begin.
If someone happens to break in to my house while my family and I are in it, I'm grabbing my gun and having someone else call 911. The weapon is a backup plan in the case someone isn't able to get to the phone to dial 911 and things take a real bad turn for the worst. As the old saying goes, it's better to have something and not need it, than need it and not have it.
Nothing wrong with that, I actually would like to get into that a bit myself to be honest... Just been too lazy to do anything about said desire..
Basically that it is.... Trust I think is a key aspect to much of this whether it is trusting the other side of the debate or not or trust within communitiesIn the States, it is a highly volatile political issue. I don't see common sense coming for either side. The anit-gun nuts do not trust the pro-gun nuts, and the pro-nuts feel the same about the anti-gun nuts. Politics in the states is reducing something to it's simplest aspect while ignoring all the major factors.
While this might actually sound completely stupid, I kind of view firearms within communities as like nuclear proliferation within nations... Obviously within certain areas they both become incredibly desirable due to real security concerns, argueably both increase your security aswell, both tend to make you a little suspect to the comparatively unarmed and ultimately they and their 'necessecity' are a reflection of the overall community, whether in the Districts or nation states if one is reliant upon these arms for security then I think the question needs to be asked more... "Why is the security concern so great, and how can we also better work to resolve it and remove tensions with our neighbors"..
Note: That is not to say the world on a micro or meta level is clean and cut rosey and we can all just easily afford to disarm but I think often upping the stakes to gain the 'lead' over the potential opponent is seen as the all to easy solution rather than removing the source of the tensions (Lack of Opportunity, Stability, Lack of Community, Inequality etc), obviously no one system works best for any particular place (That is to say People are deluding themselves to think disarming is as easy as making it law in all places)
Agreed in that high quality of life does not make one immune to threats, but I would think it certainly far reduces the issue than most other solutions..
The issue in that case is not to look at it simply within that one community also but where the source of the problem lies, and how it can be resolved at the root and that goes for all levels of crime I think from the family unit to the suburb itself.. Ultimately there is no 100% solution (There will always be bad eggs), and well your milage may vary but threats can be reduced
How would the gov't know you didn't have one gun left in your collection squirreled away somewhere? I'd just tell the authorities I sold it, I'd never give up the entire arsenal.
Having browsed US pro and anti firearm sites one wet Sunday I was puzzled why both parties reference foreign sources and experiences so much when the meat and bones of the argument rest in America alone. Ther are significant cultural and historical differences with the offspring of Britain that render many comparisons useless.
One isolated incident is not a statistically-significant sample to really know. It's a bit like saying that everyone who breathes air dies, therefore air is bad.
www.ssaa.org.au
Handguns were common in bank branches, behind the counter, until the mid 1980's. They were 'gotten rid of' after pressure from unions and such, since they didn't want women using them. (Female bank staff weren't very common until the 1970's) I wonder how many of those guns just 'disappeared' and then eventually found their way into the hands of crooks? By extension, I wonder how many ex-bank firearms were then used to rob banks?
That's hilarious.
Small, we're talking less than 1% of the country that would consider this an election issue.
Much like the stats in the dodgy video, too small a sample size to make a valid conclusion. If something hardly ever happens and then it happens just a little bit more, all of a sudden we're having a 69% increase in armed robberies...
I'm going to go ahead and say the antis started it, on the basis that:
1) The antis have largely been on the offensive, while the pro-2As have largely been working to repeal/stop the anti's misguided efforts.
2) The keeping-up-with-the-Jones argument of: Every modern civilized country has this, why don't we?
Put one and two together and the result is the antis comparing/admiring how gun free the other countries are while the pro-guns attempt to find faults in the antis' arguments. Additionally, seeing as the US originally had liberal gun legislation in the beginning, the antis are the challenger or the argument, whereas the pro-guns are the defenders or the counter-argument.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote