Australian laws are ####ed compared to america

[Stressball]

ORLY - care to back that up with some evidence???

Of course gun crime increased when they restrict it further; just the same as at present, the illegal trade of tobacco is a relatively small business, don't you think it would increase if it were banned? Not necessarily shootings, but crimes

Surest way to reduce crime statistics to 0 crimes per 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 people? LEGALISE EVERYTHING!

 

[Matty.b]

Matty, you suggested that "bad" people would replace guns with hammers, knifes and pieces of wood, and I take it from your attempt at diversion above that you realise that they simply dont compare in killing implements to guns. Basically, guns have designed with one purpose in mind, they are very effective at putting living things down, are compact for the job, can be carried to any location and require minimal skill and strength to do the job of killing.

Your point about people mowing down others in large vehicles is sound, there is no doubt about it, a vehicle can be a lethal weapon in the wrong hands, though easily available to the general population, it doesnt appear to be the weapon of choice for most criminals or one time murderers.

However, your point about your gun being a tool? please explain what possible use it has other than putting bullets in "things", if you have a legitimate use for it(feral animal control on a farm) then getting a licence shouldnt be a problem.

i totally agree that a lump of wood is no where near as dangerous (unless its got cooties on it) as a Fire-arm but what im saying is, to the people that want them banned completely there is a reason we have the checks and balances of the licence, as a collector i support them 100% it helps put a boundary between law abiding Fire-arms users and the "hey watch what happens to this letter box" kind of people
my argument is not for the dissolution of this system but... against those who say they should be banned completely

 

[Reaper]

then people would simply use knives, hammers, pieces of wood etc.

i collect Fire-arms and have been around them my entire life, anyone who thinks people with guns are all unstable is i must say a FOOL, they are tools simply
my fire-arms collection includes some very rare pieces from conflicts in the worlds past, do you think that these (which cannot be replaced) should be crushed and lost for future generations, firearms are a reality...it is part of the existence and our world...get over it, is this yet another step towards a nanny state maybe

If they can be rendered inoperative with no possible way of reversing the process then I have no issue with keeping them as historical artifacts. Beyond that, I cannot think of any reason why the general public needs operative firearms in the urban environment.

anyone out there read about the invasion of Norway by Germany in WW2 (Norway had no standing army) or the Soviet Invasion of Finland in the Winter war?

LOLS - 1930's europe was some what different to Australia in 2011. :rofl:

Reaper

 

[soop]

how many do you think he could kill with a car, what if he plowed into a crowd with a land-cruiser with a 6-bar bull bar should we ban cars as like fire-arms they have the "Potential" to kill, harm, maim or harm in some way.

if i put it in car terms, should we ban Super-Chargers, Turbos, No2 etc? as you could say it causes people to be dangerous on the roads and to peoples lives (like people say Fire-arms are)
then allow them to be used at Track days only (like the people who only want Fire-arms left at ranges) or not at all

the point is a car is a tool....like a fire-arm, if you were always very sensible and safe, never did anything bad with them and loved you car to death, then imagine someone came along and told you, your Vehicle was now illegal and you must take it down to the Transport Department where it will be sent to be crushed....doesnt matter if its a classic or how much sentimental value it has

Quoting this, because it hits the nail directly in the face with a really big hammer.

 

[Tatiana]

found it.

step 1. if they are within the boundaries of your property ask them for legal identification.
step 2. if they do not provide it you have the right to ask/tell them to leave.
step 3. you may now use reasonable force to remove them from your property (reasonable being deemed on what a group of random people come to the conclusion of what level of force is necessary to remove patrons)
step 4. if they are to pick up objects and threaten you and you genuinely feel that yours or your families (or whoever is with you) lives are in grave danger you may shoot all 7 of them legally and not be prosecuted for it.
step 5. enjoy your therapy.

this guy started at step 4. as he was hit with a bat.

umm.. its from inclosed lands act of 1901 and lepra section 321 (i think)

I also replied to this post as follows:

Excessive force cannot be used to remove a trespasser as this is an assault. A better course of action is to call the police and later sue the trespasser for compensation for any damage caused. In some situations it may be appropriate to apply for a restraining order to stop a person from trespassing again. The police can be called to remove trespassers who will not leave when told to or, who return within twenty four hours. The police can prosecute the trespasser who faces a penalty of up to $2500 fine and imprisonment for up to six months [Summary Offences Act 1953 s 17a].

 

[Full Spectrum]

american news reports by the hour of someone being a victim of gun violence. Here when you hear about shootings its a shock. But id rather be stabbed than shot, I feel you would have a better chance vs a knife. you can run away from a knife, but its hard running from bullets.

Sure most of our laws are weak, but some gun control is needed. Anyway only pussys carry weapons.

 

[vr94ss]

I sympathise with with both sides. I don't want Au armed like the US is and I also see Au as growing beyond the rural minded "Smiley Get's a Gun" culture that I grew up with. I don't think I would ever have killed anyone just as I don't know anyone that has shot someone(in Au, Army exempt, etc.).. It was another "right with conditions" like driving is in the old days. Licensed.. Anyway I sold mine before the buyback by "flack jacket Johnny" Our "wild west" rural outlook has gone and there's a lot of things I miss about it but I love our technology now.

Old shooter moving on..

Check out the movie "Smiley Get's a Gun" for interests sake. The song Smiley by Normy Rowe back in the Viet Nam days is a reference to the old Smiley movies.

 

[Matty.b]

If they can be rendered inoperative with no possible way of reversing the process then I have no issue with keeping them as historical artifacts. Beyond that, I cannot think of any reason why the general public needs operative firearms in the urban environment.



LOLS - 1930's europe was some what different to Australia in 2011. :rofl:

Reaper

you say you dont mind if they are made permanently in-operable, who will compensate me the value lost on my now non-collectables

the time period of the quoted situations is reguardless (by the way its was the 1940's not 30's), whether it happened yesterday or 4000 years ago it has been shown in History over and over again that an Armed populace/Irregular force can often put up more of an affront to the enemy then Regular Military forces, such as the Boars in South Africa, Yugoslavia, Norway, Finland, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan

whereas on the the other hand an unarmed populace is always at the mercy of the Government or Ruling Class
such as, Germany in the third Reich era, the entire Eastern Bloc under the Soviet Council, many African nations, China there is many many examples of this.

a group of people will always be apprehensive about oppressing another group if they are armed

 

[Matty.b]

Quoting this, because it hits the nail directly in the face with a really big hammer.

thanks mate appreciate it


also thanks to everyone for this thread not degenerating into a mud-slinging match.

 

[Darren_L]

it's not so much about gun laws that is the problem here in Australia.
it's the right to defend yourself & your property.

they say we have the right, but if you happen to seriously injure or kill the offender, then you will usually find yourself landing up in jail.
my belief is, if someone has forceably entered your property (be it a car or a house) and/or threatened your life with a weapon, then you should be within your rights to inflict whatever damage to that person as YOU feel necessary (rather than the court feels necessary as it stands today). If that means killing the offender, then so be it.