Australian gun laws Thread

I'm thinking of getting a gun license to do a little competition shooting, and the regulations struck me as rather, well, retarded. Semi-auto rifles/carbines are completely banned, though with a bit more effort and time a pistol license can be obtained allowing you to own up to two semi-auto pistols (IIRC) and a certain amount of revolvers (admittedly, this law in under review). In my books a .44 Desert Eagle is far more dangerous than a .22 semi-auto rifle, simply due to the ease a pistol can be concealed and operated. Bolt action or breach action are the only types of rifles that are allowed (again IIRC) as long as the magazine only holds up to 5 rounds. That means I can still purchase a .308 Steyr Scout which has a range of up to 1km.

These laws, while still restrictive, seem to have their priorities wrong. I'm not against owning guns (obviously since I'm considering getting a license =/), but the laws seem a little half-arsed. Yes, no?

I would assume the laws are there to cover the largest basis for concern without explicitly denying manufacturers such as Magnum. Few, I might suggest that none, of the people need own semi-automatic rifles/carbines for any purposes that cannot be fulfilled as well if not better by bolt-action rifles and pistols. That would include hunting, competitive shooting, and self-defense.

Well, there hasn't been any mass shootings at Australian universities, where gun laws are strict. There have in America, where gun laws are lax. I think I'll stick with the former, thanks

I wasn't suggesting loosening the gun laws, Wraiyth, quite the opposite. I suggested that semi auto pistols (which have been used in most of the US shootings I've seen on the news) are more dangerous than small-clip semi auto rifles. If you're going to ban semi auto rifles, surely you would ban handguns within the same category as well? Since the competition side of pistol shooting is covered by special designed target pistols (with very small clips, some only single shot) and semi auto pistols are poor for hunting and home defense, why not get rid of them? Most semi auto pistols I've seen have been marketed towards law enforcement or the military, not for sporting or hunting (with the exception of a few big-bore revolvers). Home defense can be covered by a breach-action shotgun, which I'd assume would be more effective anyway (less penetration, easier to aim). Hunting of course has specially designed bolt-action rifles, which is fair, but do I really need a .308 AWP with x16 scope and bipod to take out a Kangaroo (even though that would be kinda cool )?

I agree to this.
Semi-automatic pistols are a security risk, and don't really have a purpose.
They are easier to conceal and operate than rifles, meaning it's more likely people with illegal intend will use them.

So people seriously think the mind set of criminals in Australia is, "I want to murder this guy, but I can't legally carry a concealed weapon so I guess I can't do it. Oh darn."

Jiffy_No0b wrote: So people seriously think the mind set of criminals in Australia is, "I want to murder this guy, but I can't legally carry a concealed weapon so I guess I can't do it. Oh darn."

you cant deny it however, in the last week there where 4 shootouts in 1 week
4!!
here in belgium there havent been a single major shootout (involving dead) in like 4 years or so
gun laws arent the stricktest but are not lax
You get guns as a cereal box present in america (figure of speech:))
as far as gun laws go, they cant be strikt enough imo

Jiffy_No0b wrote: So people seriously think the mind set of criminals in Australia is, "I want to murder this guy, but I can't legally carry a concealed weapon so I guess I can't do it. Oh darn."

One of my professors, said this in a seminar on the history of terrorism and its connections to technological development:

"Let us imagine two extreme cases, one that you can only kill other people by physically beating them down and strangeling them. The other, that all you have to do is push a button to end their lives. Would there be a higher number of murders in the last case?"

His oppinion was yes, of cause there will, and that is my answer as well.

Jiffy_No0b wrote: So people seriously think the mind set of criminals in Australia is, "I want to murder this guy, but I can't legally carry a concealed weapon so I guess I can't do it. Oh darn."

The stark contrast between a country such as America and one such as Britain based on their gun laws would suggest, yes.

Jiffy_No0b wrote: So people seriously think the mind set of criminals in Australia is, "I want to murder this guy, but I can't legally carry a concealed weapon so I guess I can't do it. Oh darn."

Ironically, there is some truth to that. While it is true that the law won't stop criminals carrying guns when they have a plan in mind, it does stop them carrying them out of habit. When you can be arrested just for having one in your posession, only really stupid criminals carry them without an intended purpose. If they don't have them around all the time, they can't shoot someone impulsively. They have to plan the crime with a bit more care, and thus they tend to only shoot people that endanger their 'business'.

In the UK you don't get people shooting someone when they accidentally drive into the back of their car because at the time of the accident all the guns will be hidden somewhere safe, and by the time the criminal gets home they will have calmed down enough to just claim it on the insurance rather than get angry and shoot people. That's the big difference as I see it.

Jiffy_No0b wrote: So people seriously think the mind set of criminals in Australia is, "I want to murder this guy, but I can't legally carry a concealed weapon so I guess I can't do it. Oh darn."

Tell that to the poor guy that got shot in Melbourne last year.

The gun laws are still fucked, you can still go into a gun shop and walk out with a gun with the intention of shooting someone. You'd probably find that the gun culture still exists in Australia despite Howard claiming he "killed it".

Furthermore, why can't you buy Airsofts in Australia?! Maybe they should ban the heavy ammo types instead? that'd make more sense. The closest thing we have to settle for is Paintball, which is quite the rage here in Australia for obvious reasons.

Indeed, Mr_Cyberpunk. Airsoft guns are banned, because they look like real guns. But, as far as I know, .50 BMG rounds are still available?

Yeah you can still get the ammo stupidly enough. (in a shopping center of all places )

Moddb.com
You won't see me going on a shooting spree.(I own them for target shooting and bragging rights.(I plan on getting several more this summer.)) America does have gun laws I just think no matter what we do nothing would help. There's so many in circulation and I'm sure so many have been made Illegal by scratching off the serial number, cutting down the barrel, et cetera, that no matter what would happen there would still be a large flow of guns. Think about this Switzerland has 'American stlye gun laws', but gun deaths lower than Germany, and even close to that of Japan. Why is this the case? It's not our gun laws it's our culture. Over 100k americans die a year of Alxohol poisoning, and our drinking age is 21.(A good portion of the people are underage, so what has the strict drinking law accomplished?) that A criminal could get a gun if he set his mind to it. Ever hear of zip guns? Also, in America you can buy full auto weapons, short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, and grenade launchers legally.

Edited by (in order): sharma, sharma

sharma, your drinking age argument falls down because of one thing: you don't know how the current law affects the number of underage binge drinkers. It's probably safe to say that it limits the number, but then a few might drink just to spite the law.

Wraiyth wrote: Well, there hasn't been any mass shootings at Australian universities, where gun laws are strict. There have in America, where gun laws are lax. I think I'll stick with the former, thanks

I would just like to point out that I havent herd of a university shooting in montana which pretty much doesn't have any gun control laws. I can walk into a store and buy a P-90 over here.

The_Wolf wrote: sharma, your drinking age argument falls down because of one thing: you don't know how the current law affects the number of underage binge drinkers. It's probably safe to say that it limits the number, but then a few might drink just to spite the law.

Acrually if you lowered the drinking age there would be less underage binge drinkers

Edited by: STRATCOM

Acrually if you lowered the drinking age there would be less underage binge drinkers

Yeah, there'd just be more people who would do it because they could do it legally. Wouldn't change anything.

Wraiyth wrote:

Acrually if you lowered the drinking age there would be less underage binge drinkers

Yeah, there'd just be more people who would do it because they could do it legally. Wouldn't change anything.

I am not sure if the number of people that binge drink would go up but, the number of times that those who do would probaby would go up. In any case this is getting off topic though Minimum drinking age would probabably make for some great discussion as its own thread

Edited by: STRATCOM