Thread: Firearms ban in Western aussie

Duplicate post

Originally Posted by Flyblown

In most similar democracies, e.g. UK, gun control has stopped at what the ordinary guy would regard as the typical sporting rifle. It’s been that way for many years now. Gun control as I experienced it did not in any way shape or form stop me from hunting, be it deerstalking, rough shooting with 12ga or rimfire small game shooting.



What do you propose?

heres what I propose, I dont only want to own guns for hunting, hell i don't consider 50 bmg to be a sporting cartridge but i absolutelty believe that i should be able to own one if i wanted, it almost sounds as if you dont mind uk gun laws because you still get to own what you want to own, well guess what i don't, I want to be able to shoot long range competition I want to and do own pistols, and im sure as hell not using that for deer but guess what, i still own it. if we let them take this away what are they going to take away next? first we said ok we will register our e cat ar's then they used that register to check of everyone who was forced to comply with the confiscation then they said we will ban pump action ar's, we said ok, then they said they would ban certain pistols which they did, infact is this not proof that pnhg wants all firearms gone? that they are gradually removing the range of firearms we can own, creating difficulties for firearm clubs, introducing laws without really making it clear to everybody. they never go after the duck shooters semi auto but they will go after the minoritys ie sports shooters guns. A sports shooter would stick up in hand in protest if the government went after a hunters firearm but as long as the hunter gets to keep his 308 deer rifle most of them dont give 2 shits. gun control has sure as hell stopped me from doing what I wanted to do with a firearm and I envy you for not having the same experience

In most similar democracies, e.g. UK, gun control has stopped at what the ordinary guy would regard as the typical sporting rifle. It’s been that way for many years now. Gun control as I experienced it did not in any way shape or form stop me from hunting, be it deerstalking, rough shooting with 12ga or rimfire small game shooting.

We all share the same concerns about over-reach and excessive imposition of control due to ulterior motives. If the police motive truly is the removal of all firearms from society, and there is irrefutable evidence that supports this view, then how do you propose we go about stopping it? Because this is the next part of the face-to-face conversation I have with people who are worried about this. They all say the same thing… unless we stop it. But how?

The how part never gets a straight answer.

What do you propose?[/QUOTE]

I should have addressed this before now, but in my eyes the answer is normalisation of the sport, and the tools of the sport. I introduce as many people as I can to hunting - via venison sausages, through taking them target shooting, through talking about pheasant hunting and the dog work that goes with it - all of the joy of the hunting experience.

I'm not trying to turn them into hunters necessarily, just to show them that this is something done by normal people, and no threat to them.

Politicians will vote in response to their perceptions of the electorates willingness to punish them for choices that they oppose. What I mean by that is that most pollies have a hierarchy of motivations. First, re-election. Second, a personal and party series of agendas. Their actions are managed by a question that sounds like "will this hurt my chances of getting back in at the next election?", and if they perceive that the bulk of the population is either actively anti, or at least apathetic to a group (for example, shooters) then they have carte blanche to do what they want, on the grounds that this won't get in the way at the next election. What I am looking to do is to move people from passive/possibly concerned about guns towards either moderately positive, or at worst meh about the question.

The people we should be looking to involve are those on the fence, whose perceptions have been gained through movies, tv and the media and not through contact with decent people who enjoy shooting. Show them the face of sport shooting is not Rambo, but George the mechanic or whomever you are.

Originally Posted by Ross Nolan

Politicians will vote in response to their perceptions of the electorates willingness to punish them for choices that they oppose. What I mean by that is that most pollies have a hierarchy of motivations. First, re-election. Second, a personal and party series of agendas. Their actions are managed by a question that sounds like "will this hurt my chances of getting back in at the next election?", and if they perceive that the bulk of the population is either actively anti, or at least apathetic to a group (for example, shooters) then they have carte blanche to do what they want, on the grounds that this won't get in the way at the next election. .

so.....the gangs are left to do as they please and the drug dealers are whacked with wet bus ticket then offered councilling for the trauma afterwards BECAUSE???? the polititions have realised the gangs are now so big that everyone in country who votes is tied into someone with a patch??? and the drug problem is so huge the connection is even bigger...radio as typing this says the addicted in Gisborne will be suffering and may need hospitalization and in some cases deprivation may lead to death.....

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

radio as typing this says the addicted in Gisborne will be suffering and may need hospitalization and in some cases deprivation may lead to death.....

Isn’t that typical. Just when I small out of fucks to give.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

so.....the gangs are left to do as they please and the drug dealers are whacked with wet bus ticket then offered councilling for the trauma afterwards BECAUSE???? the polititions have realised the gangs are now so big that everyone in country who votes is tied into someone with a patch??? and the drug problem is so huge the connection is even bigger...radio as typing this says the addicted in Gisborne will be suffering and may need hospitalization and in some cases deprivation may lead to death.....

I think the answer is a whole lot more complex and nuanced than just go hard and lock the sons of bitches up.

There is an employment component, an associates and community component, a pride component, a family component, a money component, a solo parent component, an education component, a lack of belonging, of excitement....and it isn't accidental that gaining a patch involves doing something that makes it impossible to be accepted back into "polite" society.

I don't think that any party is courting the gang vote, but I do think that doing the things that will fix it are going to be hard, and could risk the voter base of some of the parties.

If it was simple the fix would have been done already.

Originally Posted by Micky Duck

so.....the gangs are left to do as they please and the drug dealers are whacked with wet bus ticket then offered councilling for the trauma afterwards BECAUSE???? the polititions have realised the gangs are now so big that everyone in country who votes is tied into someone with a patch??? and the drug problem is so huge the connection is even bigger...radio as typing this says the addicted in Gisborne will be suffering and may need hospitalization and in some cases deprivation may lead to death.....

Sorry but according to todays information....The gangs are 'community leaders' and have been asked by Nashie to to show leadership and discourage looting in the flooded areas up north...They mobilised 600 police for the protests at parliament, and they mobilised the armed forces for the Chch earthquakes (though unarmed in that role...) And Nash is from up that way somewhere, isnt he?

so it is in all intents and purposes the same as one..and being used in same manner as one..so..if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its probably not a saber tooth tiger.....
it is what it is.
pretending its not does no body any good.

if you wearing hightopped high heeled leather boots,a wide brimmed stetson hat,set of chaps wearing leather belt with low slung holsters holding 6 shot revolvers you arent playing a game of soccer..your acting out being cowboy gunslinger...ITS NO DIFERENT.
you wouldnt then turn around and be able to say..they arent..western/cowboy type guns now could you????
again in perfect world we should be able to use what we want..but world isnt perfect.

Except of course an AR15 is NOT a military rifle where as anything based of a Lee Enfield, P14/17, multiple Mausers, Remington 700 are.
Brno .223 where used by the Police does that make them a military rifle as well?

I have no problem using any semiautomatic firearm for shooting targets and gongs.

It's no different from shooting clay targets with a Benelli M2 or Remington 1187. Both of which have been used by militaries.

Originally Posted by PeteD

Except of course an AR15 is NOT a military rifle where as anything based of a Lee Enfield, P14/17, multiple Mausers, Remington 700 are.
Brno .223 where used by the Police does that make them a military rifle as well?

Pete, I have it on good authority that in the initial police discussions after CHC that their proposals to ban "high capacity" magazines included 10 round mags. Until someone of slightly more sane mind pointed out to the "policy experts" that they would be banning every single Lee Enfield in New Zealand....

Originally Posted by PeteD

Except of course an AR15 is NOT a military rifle where as anything based of a Lee Enfield, P14/17, multiple Mausers, Remington 700 are.
Brno .223 where used by the Police does that make them a military rifle as well?

I have no problem using any semiautomatic firearm for shooting targets and gongs.

It's no different from shooting clay targets with a Benelli M2 or Remington 1187. Both of which have been used by militaries.

ar15...M16 ford lazer...mazda 323
I have no problem with either..but the reality is,the government and general public now do.
my point is AGAIN if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..its a fuckin duck.

and many military actions have been undertaken with SxS shotgun,.22lr single shot bolt actions,break opens of all discriptions and muzzle loaders...they were used in military actions VS firearm MADE for military action and you are of course correct the SMLE and 98 mauser were too. if you drive a unimog good on you,but dont try and call it a civilian shopping basket.
the remington 700 and indeed the winchester model 70 have bboth seen quite a lot of military action too..BUT thats a civilian firearm adapted to milatary use,the opposite to an AR15 which for all intents and purposes is was and will always be a military firearm adopted to civilian use.
if yo ureally want to nit pick the 10/22 is direct decendant of the springfield 30/06 30/03 and the M1 carbine as were the mini 14s the ruger ranch rifles the deerfields..they are all decendants of the springfield.
but they are not in fireing line YET.... the 10/22 has been deemed to have a purpose that is good enough to keep them around, the mini14 is still around on P endorsement.....
Im not dumb..I do realise the firearms were all origonally made for military usage..you could argue the same with bow and arrow. both have taken parallel pathways and both have diverged into different streams heading roughly parallel target,hunting and warfare....and both also have crossover/blending.

People need to be extremely careful about talk of banning anything that has association with a military type rifle as this would include many rifles and shotguns currently on the market.
As far as banning military cartridges we need to remember that this not the first time Australia has done this. Hence why we have the .25/303 etc.
France also went down this road and rifles such as the .222 ruger mini 14 was made to get around it.

The calibers that Australia is talking of banning may have some vague relationship with some military calibers but so what. Even the Police admit they have never had an incident where these calibers were used in a crime against
Police.

Originally Posted by PeteD

People need to be extremely careful about talk of banning anything that has association with a military type rifle as this would include many rifles and shotguns currently on the market.
As far as banning military cartridges we need to remember that this not the first time Australia has done this. Hence why we have the .25/303 etc.
France also went down this road and rifles such as the .222 ruger mini 14 was made to get around it.

The calibers that Australia is talking of banning may have some vague relationship with some military calibers but so what. Even the Police admit they have never had an incident where these calibers were used in a crime against
Police.

agree and you are correct. we also saw lots of..imported to get around it,of grey area things.... and the people doing said importing and selling were put up on pedistal as some sort of demigods doing all shooting community a huge favour....... you know it, I know it,they know it,the police and government know it...some of us however believe they should be shot with ball of thier own shit and not allowed to own anything more than a water pistol..... hi capacity magazines that were made for said AR15 just for one tiny EG.... the varmet shotguns for another.

As I posted previously this is about perception of threat. The aussie rozzers have more fear of the public than even ours.
Their risk assessments have identified that these firearms are going to be used for a mass execution event. Based on power range etc.
Also as posted earlier the Canadians have just sglhitcanned a ban on weapons with a power raging over over 10k joules.
This sort of ban includes dangerous game rifles, doubles, single shots etc.
Nothing to do with reality other than fear by the authorities.
If anyone can say that someone will use 475double rifle for an armour piercing use against police they are being a walker.
The fact is they drum up enough fearfrom the publicly to think that is a reality.
The good thing is the Canadian population has the magical mix of needing firearms for food/defence way more than us with amassively bigger population (with a good jolt of US fervor), and have managed to get it shut down.
We need to be a bit more vocal

So rather than throwing sports shooters under the bus and labeling AR15s as being based on a military rifle (which it was not, the AR15/10 was around long before the M16) why not support all forms of shooting dports.
Even today there was a news article calling on DOC to do more than using hunters for deer control and take more action. There was a not so discrete reference to ignore pressure groups such as NZDA and rid the country of hoofed pests.
I will fight tooth and nail to defend hunters rights as this sort of action by DOC will impact but I expect support from hunters for those who restrict thier shooting to a range.