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.

Originally Posted by senojekips

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.

Originally Posted by senojekips

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.

My point exactly!!

Originally Posted by MontyB

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?

Originally Posted by Bugfatty

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.