Each successive choice implies that the previous choices are implemented. For example, if you select option three, you are saying that you think criminals shouldn't have firearms and military grade weapons shouldn't be privately owned.

i agree with these:

Convicted criminals shouldn't have firearms, but there should be very few other restrictions.
No ownership of military grade weapons (explosive devices, select fire, etc.).
All firearms should be registered.

My personal opinion is this:
1. All firearms registered
2. No Automatic weapons
3. Handguns under heavier restrictions than rifles
4. Convicted crims get no guns
5. Minimum 28 days waiting time for weapons
6. 100 Point Police Check
7. Must be a member of a gun club/hunting club/or other organisation
8. Must maintain a certain number of legitimate shoots a year
9. No explosives
10. Semi-auto weapons restricted with higher levels of security checks etc


I've got fairly strict ideas on gun control because thats how things work here, and it works really well.

If the US didn't have thousands of miles of borders that are difficult to control, I could understand tighter restrictions. If the US didn't have 300,000,000 people, I could understand tighter restrictions. If the US didn't have the Second Amendment, I could understand tighter restrictions. Those reasons, in my opinion, rule out such things as registration. Also in my opinion, the intent of the Second Amendment rules out most of the other restrictions.

I can understand requiring background checks, certification, and similar if a person wants to carry concealed. I cannot understand similar requirements for someone who wants a firearm in the home.

I chose the third option. IMO if a person feels they need to own a .50 anti-material rifle to have fun then they are not mentally fit to be owning a gun. I have never gone hunting but I do believe it is necessary A.) to control the size the animal population, deer, geese, duck etc. because without hunting they will breed till the run out of food. then most will die off, then start all over again. B.) believe it or not but some families depend on the food they can bring in hunting to survive or at least lower their bills a lot, I know it may seem hard to believe that this issue exists in the US but it is true, I have met some of them. One buck can feed a family for quite a while.

Also, I know how much fun it can be to trap shoot and BB guns just aren't adaquate for dealing with a rabbit population that grows exponentially every 15 minutes, a .22 comes in real handy provided it is properly sighted. (Yes, I missed a rabbit from 35 feet with a .22 because someone messed with the sites and I missed by two inches, two inches at 35 feet, that's not what I call acceptable by any means)

Oh, but there is my personal favorite, if you ban firearms in America you will be depriving me of my ability to celebrate our nations birthday the way it was meant to be celebrated, the redneck way, with fireworks, firearms and alcohol. (always remember, FFA)

Registration and confiscation not only sound alike, they synonymous in my book. A hobnail boot on the back of the neck.

Yeah, I can't tell you how scared I am everytime I go to get my tags updated at the DMV office thinking they will take away my car from me, since so many more people are killed by automobiles every year than firearms.

Originally Posted by AussieNick

My personal opinion is this:
1. All firearms registered
2. No Automatic weapons
3. Handguns under heavier restrictions than rifles
4. Convicted crims get no guns
5. Minimum 28 days waiting time for weapons
6. 100 Point Police Check
7. Must be a member of a gun club/hunting club/or other organisation
8. Must maintain a certain number of legitimate shoots a year
9. No explosives
10. Semi-auto weapons restricted with higher levels of security checks etc

I've got fairly strict ideas on gun control because thats how things work here, and it works really well.

I agree with most of this, except number 7. I would replace number 8 with the requirement for a specified minimum hours of training or proven experience such as military service and an annual requirement for proficiency. But what are the 100 points to check?

[QUOTEI agree with most of this, except number 7. I would replace number 8 with the requirement for a specified minimum hours of training or proven experience such as military service and an annual requirement for proficiency. But what are the 100 points to check?[/QUOTE]

The 100 points is a system used in Australia to check I.D. and background security. When the police do your security check, depending on what class of licence you go for it can include far more than just criminal history.

As for the military experience thing, yes it would be great to be approved on that... but for me personally, I don't think people need to have a gun in their home unless they use it for work, target shooting, hunting etc. It's just the difference between Aussie and US culture in that sense.

Best Form of Gun Control: MORE GUNS!



"pry it from my cold, dead hands".