"Gun Control"

What sort of government control should there be on firearms?

  • All firearms should be in the hands of the governement. No civilian should ever own firearms.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    43
These laws do not work for "us". They don't work for anyone, other than the law abiding citizen who is not the cause of the potential problem in the first place.

It is not an "unfortunate" consequence, it is an "ill considered" consequence to the knee jerk reaction of a small percentage of the population to one (to use your terminology) "unfortunate" act.
 
These laws do not work for "us". They don't work for anyone, other than the law abiding citizen who is not the cause of the potential problem in the first place.

It is not an "unfortunate" consequence, it is an "ill considered" consequence to the knee jerk reaction of a small percentage of the population to one (to use your terminology) "unfortunate" act.

Using your logic there should be no laws at all as all the "good" people will do no wrong and all the "bad" people will ignore the rules anyway.

As far as gun control goes "our" laws work perfectly well for New Zealand, I am by no means of the opinion that they will work for anyone else.

So in order to progress this discussion how about you tell "us" why these laws dont work?
Are you constantly in danger while performing your everyday duties (as a civilian obviously) at home that you need a weapon, do you have a reason to fear your government or local population, do you think Australia is about to break down into a lawless mob?
Give me one law abiding reason you would "need" access to an automatic weapon.
 
I just spent a half an hour Hunting and pecking only to lose it all when I viewed your Profile. I'll not do it all again.

I will merely state that it has cost me a lot of money and enjoyment, only to see 20 years worth of collecting go down the drain.

It is as I said an ill conceived kneejerk reaction.

One does not need to be in danger to need a firearm. However if one was to find themselves in the situation where they did, it's too. late.

Give me one good reason why anyone needs anything other than food and air.

Your logic is that of the "wet left" I feel.
 
Last edited:
I just spent a half an hour Hunting and pecking only to lose it all when I viewed your Profile. I'll not do it all again.

I will merely state that it has cost me a lot of money and enjoyment, only to see 20 years worth of collecting go down the drain.

It is as I said an ill conceived kneejerk reaction.

I may be wrong here and I confess to be guessing but I was under the impression that Australia had similar gun laws to us (In fact I thought we had copied and modified your laws) but if that is the case then all you require is the license to own restricted weapons (and yes that involves more than just picking one up) therefore any loss of money, items and fun would have been through choice.
 
My choice was made only because it has all become too over legislated and expensive.

S/sgt Colin Care (Spelling) of SAPOL stated that there was no way that the Police would allow me to keep most of my "Classic" pieces under any circumstances. Once I had disposed of them this law or its interpretation was changed. Typical public service stuff, where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

Only a few years ago I was contacted by the police firearms division asking about the disposal of several weapons that I had handed in over 20 years ago, yesterday I received my licence papers even though they must be aware that I no longer own any firearms. Their record keeping would be a joke, if the potential consequences weren't so serious.

So like it or not.

The law as it stands is a crock of sh*t, and it's implementation is worse, aimed more at acquiring revenue than controlling weapons. It certainly hasn't removed the firearms from the hands of those who are most likely to cause any trouble. I have been out of the game for nearly 30 years, but I could, if the need arose be in possession of an automatic military firearm of nearly any type within about 24 - 48 hours. But then again I am a law abiding citizen so I wouldn't do it.
 
Well I certainly wont argue poor implementation of a law, fortunately that wasn't the case here, from the time the laws changed to the time I had my new licenses was less than two weeks but I certainly agree that it seemed more about money than anything else.

Unfortunately laws are not written for the law abiding they are written to combat those that choose not to comply.
 
Give me one law abiding reason you would "need" access to an automatic weapon.

In the US there is a saying: Its the bill of rights, not the bill of needs.

There may not be a written guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms in Australia or New Zealand but the principle is the same. If the government can ban things on sheer basis of "need" then they can pretty much ban anything on that basis.

Look at the UK. 20 years ago, they had a prospering gun/shooting/hunting culture. Then came Hungerford. No semi-auto allowed. Then came Dunblane. No handguns allowed period.

And now a law abiding British citizen can't even carry mace or pepperspray on them in the most violent country in the developed world.

What happens if someone drives through a crowded plaza killing a number people? Will they then ban private ownership of cars?
 
Last edited:
In the US there is a saying: Its the bill of rights, not the bill of needs.

There may not be a written guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms in Australia or New Zealand but the principle is the same. If the government can ban things on sheer basis of "need" then they can pretty much ban anything on that basis.

But surely using this logic the government should have no right to ban anything. As I have said earlier governments do not pass laws with the law abiding in mind they pass them (right or wrong) to combat problems, we don't have laws against stealing, murder, speeding or drugs on the off chance that some one may carry out the act we have them because people have carried out these acts and society wants them controlled or stopped.


Look at the UK. 20 years ago, they had a prospering gun/shooting/hunting culture. Then came Hungerford. No semi-auto allowed. Then came Dunblane. No handguns allowed period.

And now a law abiding British citizen can't even carry mace or pepperspray on them in the most violent country in the developed world.

I am not sure what your point is here to be honest but I am absolutely certain that dumping more weapons on the market and relaxing gun laws will not reduce the level of violence in the UK, I have read the arguments that allowing people to arm themselves for protection will deter attackers but I am not convinced I personally think that all you will do is create an civilian arms race with the determined criminals coming out on top.

What happens if someone drives through a crowded plaza killing a number people? Will they then ban private ownership of cars?

Interestingly enough motor vehicles are registered and you are required to have a license to use one.
:)
There are also laws on the books about vehicular homicide etc. would you suggest that those laws are too tough after all people spend a fortune on vehicles and the law abiding would never kill anyone with one.
Lets face it vehicles don't kill people, people kill people.
 
Ans: Ban people.??.... Just joking.

I'm sure that the law could have been better thought out and implemented than it was. Stricter Licence conditions, closer examination of those applying for licenses and punishments commensurate with improper use. Persons wishing to gain a licence should have to be reviewed by a panel of persons who would have some responsibility to the state regarding that persons fitness to have a license. This is the system in our pistol clubs at present and works very well.

Only recently a local was refused a pistol licence on the grounds that he was not considered to be mature in his outlook, (he was 37 years old). He appealed the clubs decision, who in turn gave their reasons to the police, the licence application was refused. He also had his firearms licence revoked and weapons seized and sold on consignment by a licensed gun dealer. Knowing the person concerned I thought that the reaction of the police was fitting.

Now, the police were previously aware of the past behaviour of this individual, but had not thought to review his eligibility to hold a firearms licence. As I said, "It's more about revenue that effective gun control".

Crime and Punishment has always been one of my "hobby horses" There is little or no relationship between many crimes and their punishments (But I won't even start on that)

The new laws haven't stopped illegal weapons being available to the criminal element, and all they have done is deny honest people their enjoyment. There's not much justice in that.
 
Last edited:
I don't disagree that the laws are imperfect and are riddled with local bureaucracy and incompetence to add to the confusion this however does not mean that the intent of the law itself is wrong.
 
The intent and consequences were never a consideration, it was a kneejerk reaction made by politicians for political gain alone. The easy way out for them, where they can be seen to be doing something, and damn the law abiding gun owners.

For the pollies it was just, "Back to the trough, and on with the never ending series of overseas junkets and free lunches".

We want less laws more justice. Because as funny as it may seem they are most often mutually incompatible. e.g. a sober licenced motorist who is stopped at a stoplight is rammed in the rear by another vehicle, he is deemed to be partly in the wrong for being there. Don't tell me it's not true, I know of a case where this was the judgement, and when the defendant complained he was interupted by the magistrate to be told, "Mr XXXX before you go any further may I remind you that this is not a court of justice, it is a court of LAW.

What chance does an honest man stand in system like that? This is the mentality that brings about laws such as those we have forced upon us like the current Firearms act.
 
Last edited:
handguns should be allowed for self defense, and Other than that, hunting rifles and shotguns.

And please no S&W .575 Magnum Revolvers. I Have never been mugged by an elephant, and to not expect to be.
 
Control - yes ...... Ban - no ....

Let's see -

1. 6 year olds should be allowed to pack 22cal pistols.

2. 12 year olds should be armed with 38cal semi-auto weapons and be allowed to wear them while attending school.

3. 18 year olds and above should be allowed to carry anything up to and including 50cal sniper rifles or assault weapons.

4. Women should be required to carry snub-nosed 38's in their purses along with pepper/CS agent dispensers.


JUST THINK - if everybody carries, we will never again have to worry about an unarmed civilian not being able to protect themselves from the criminal underworld when the entire populace is armed.

The days of the shootout at high-noon can be re-enabled and we can sell tickets for bleacher seats for those who wish to rubber-neck when two factions decide to trade gunfire with each other ... think of the added income we could put into our community's coffers. I can see it now, a Gunfight at the OK Corral every Saturday at High Noon.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The above tongue-in-cheek humor is NOT so unbelievable. IF there were NO laws regulating weapons, these things could very well come about. As a society, we have decided that there need to be minimum laws covering the sale and ownership of firearms. Weapons designed for use on the battlefields of the world that are capable of continuous fire of bullets that can blow through steel are NOT suited as deer hunting weapons and should NOT be allowed on our streets. The sale of anything other than a shotgun or a conventional deer rifle should require a background check to determine whether the person who is trying to buy these weapons does NOT have a criminal record or a record of mental disease. Why the NRA and other wacko groups have such a heartburn where this is concerned is beyond me. To me, this is the minimum that should be done for the protection of society.

On the other hand ... I WILL NEVER BE IN FAVOR OF A TOTAL BAN ON FIREARMS ... I just believe that oversight needs to be carried out to keep weapons out of the hands of those who should NOT be allowed access to them.
 
I am a retired Seaman and don't mind admitting I detest the sea. In my industry yacht owners, particularly the ocean going or offshore variety, are referred to as the "Blowflies of the sea" (They are for the most part a bloody nuisance)

The boating fraternity in my mind are all lunatics, there's not a month goes by without the state footing a large bill for a search for some lost "boatie", then there are those who drown, kill and injure themselves and endanger the lives of others in their use of power boats not to mention the annoyance many cause.

For the most part there is no reason why these people need to have a boat, but I don't go around advocating that all boats be banned for other than those who can show a need to own one. This stupid idea that we must "need" something to be able to own it is completely out of order.

As I stated earlier, the only things we "need" are, air sustenance and maybe shelter. But Im buggered if I'm going to agree to that either.

And on that note, I will reiterate my claim that "Gun control laws within Australia are a crock of sh*t", and withdraw from the debate having said all that I am going to on the matter.
 
And on that note, I will reiterate my claim that "Gun control laws within Australia are a crock of sh*t", and withdraw from the debate having said all that I am going to on the matter.


The laws you are talking about are they the ones that were implemented after the Martin Bryant incident or have there been major changes since then?
(I don't follow Australian law changes anymore than I imagine you follow New Zealand changes).
:)
 
Why should guns be treated on a "need to have" basis when the 2nd amendment clearly says "shall not be infringed."

Why outlaw assault weapons when they're only used about 1% of weapon related crimes compared to handguns to which are used in 80% of weapon related crimes?

Why outlaw .50 caliber rifles? When was the last person murdered or killed by a .50 caliber rifle? How many Jetliners have been shot down by a .50 caliber rifle?
 
Why should guns be treated on a "need to have" basis when the 2nd amendment clearly says "shall not be infringed."

So tell me are there any limits to the "2nd amendment?
What stops you owning a Bradley for "self defense" or maybe a small tactical nuke to ensure your safety when walking the streets, hell MAD worked during the cold war why not extend it to civilians "One funny look from a thug and boom 6 city blocks leveled bet he wont do that again."
Where does "want to have" make way for "too dangerous to own"?
 
So tell me are there any limits to the "2nd amendment?
What stops you owning a Bradley for "self defense" or maybe a small tactical nuke to ensure your safety when walking the streets, hell MAD worked during the cold war why not extend it to civilians "One funny look from a thug and boom 6 city blocks leveled bet he wont do that again."
Where does "want to have" make way for "too dangerous to own"?

Nuclear weapons are of an indescriminant mass destruction nature.

And whats wrong with someone owning a Bradley IFV or a tank? There are lots of people in the US who collect working tanks with working guns with proper BATF paperwork.

Can you find me an instance where a legal privately owned machinegun, grenade launcher, .50 caliber rifle, tank, IFV, fighter jet, was used to kill someone in the US?
 
Back
Top