Um no. I commented that ‘we’ shouldn’t have these lethal weapons and ‘we’ have no ‘right’ to them. I could give two hoots what ‘your’ laws allow, it doesnt affect me and we’re not chiding you for your perspective in fact the reverse. In this thread we have been called lapdogs, its been implied we are spineless, and the OP is full of righteous drivel about how ‘you’ would never stand for such ‘nonsense’. To quote the wise Boo Boo Foo you can go and get stuffed if you dont like them, its our country, not yours.
Thanks for putting that in perspective Eolbo. I had misread your post as insinuating that no one could be remotely expected to responsibly own a firearm, inside or outside of Australia, and that they should not be kept by private citizens of any country.
Having put that in perspective as Australian normalcy versus American normalcy, I take no issue with your comment. In that context I would (And have) agreed. Sorry about the confusion.
TheLoadedDog wrote:
A-fuckin’-men, bruddah… Methinks too many people got their knickers in a twist and turned this into a Yank/Oz pissing contest.
But you know something? I don’t mind that one little bit. You see, most Americans recognise that Australians are very similar to West Coast Americans, and to a lesser degree because of the climate, to West Coast Canadians as well.
And because of this similarity, we have a truckload of shared perspectives and common bonds and shared history etc. In some respects, there’s a bit of small cousin / big cousin thing going down - and realistically I don’t mind the OZ/USA pissing match one little bit at all - because when all is said and done it’s nothing more than a bit of a family spat I reckon. The bonds are far thicker than they are fragile.
The very fact that our esteemed Airman Doors created this thread is somewhat flattering in an odd way - after all, it was destined to get a lot of reaction from Australians wishing to state their viewpoints and Airman would have known this. My attitude is that [if] he didn’t give a shit about what us Aussies thought on the subject, then he probably wouldn’t have bothered to create the thread in the first place. So no harm done in the final analysis.
In closing (and in answer to the OP) - ummm… unless there’s a way that we could somehow hide Ayer’s Rock, I don’t think we’ll be banning rocks sometime soon.
I think there might actually have been smoke coming out of my ears for a moment there… but the more rationally I think about this, the more I mostly agree. 
The OP isn’t about banning the mere act of being a hobbyist… no one has yet said the recreationists can’t get dressed in anachronistic clothing and dance medieval dances, or (for say WWI groups) hold parades, or whatever. Rather that some equipment that they want/need to use falls under laws that require permits. By the same token, if one wants to practise model rocketry (for example) in NZ, then you are bound to follow certain regulations around commercial explosives – heck, if you want to go diving you generally need a certification.
One reservation I have is that there is a differerence between licensing/regulating the tools/equipment of a hobby and simply banning the pursuit itself. If for example, there were a lot of dive accidents, then it would be reasonable (IMO) for the govt. (in the interests of public safety) to tighten up dive certification (even if this meant additional cost to divers – e.g. annual licenses, compulsory gear checks/warrants). It would be unreasonable to simply ban recreational diving.
Such a ban probably wouldn’t happen however, because (here at least) there are a lot of recreational divers. But to suggest that it would be OK to ban medieval recreation, merely on the grounds that it’s just a hobby, and there aren’t many people doing it anyway – that is a slippery slope.
The second reservation is, going back to the regulations in the OP, the question of balance. At what point is it OK to impose costs on the bulk of hobbyists for the public good? Back to the diving analogy, how many dive accidents have to occur before it’s OK to make all divers get annual licenses? From the perspective of the Oz SCAers whose posts I’ve seen it’s the same question. They have swords that will require licenses (and gun cases apparently). How much public good is being served by putting this cost on them? I think that’s the basics of it.
Hamster troubles…
Actually, the average handgun is a pretty crappy killing tool. Folks on the “ban the guns” side can get just as hysterial as the “gun nuts”.
I’ve been shot at twice by handguns and never been hit by a single bullet. Most handguns are terribly inaccurate at any distance, and most users with malicious intent do not take the time to get into a proper stance to aim. Portable, yes, effective? - not particularly in average hands.
Not to mention that, with a handgun, you not only have to hit a target you have to hit something vital. Being shot does not always equal death - lots of folks have survived being shot. It’s a really horrible experience, yes, but a single .22 bullet to the thigh is quite survivable.
Now, if you’re talking about someone trained to use a handgun properly, who practices regularly, and has a gun of sufficient quality to make aiming a skill rather than an act of chance… that’s different. But folks who do all that are generally not the impulsive sort. Even so, soldiers use rifles as their main weapons, not handguns.
And no, I’m not kidding myself that handguns aren’t dangerous - they can be used to kill people. And meat cleavers are used to slice through flesh and bone - is that any less disturbing?
Yes, a handgun is for shooting people, not deer. That is, in fact, why handguns are used for self-defense. But, to my mind, if I wanted an effective home defense tool it’s hard to beat a shotgun. I mean, you don’t even have to aim very well, just point roughly in the Bad Guy’s direction and fire. You’ll cause a lot of damage very quickly, they’re an excellent stopping tool. Not as portable as a .22 or .45 handgun, though, I must admit.
If ever I buy a handgun it would most likely be for target shooting. And most target shooters I know keep the guns unloaded, even disabled, when they’re in their homes. Which makes quick use a little difficult. The few folks I’ve known who felt a need to sleep with a loaded gun next to the bed took it as a sign they should move to better neighborhood, and did so - at which point they sold their guns. None, I might add, ever fired a shot at anyone.
As far as effective killing tools go… Timothy McVeigh did a bang-up job of slaughter with fertilizer and diesel fuel, two items available in bulk to any farmer in the US. If you want to kill a LOT of people bombs, even crude ones, can be far more effective than any handgun. If handguns are so damn effective then why did McVeigh - who had a military background, was familiar with guns, had access to them, and owned several - choose to load a rented van with a bomb instead of guns and ammo?
Law abiding citizens who buy guns legally, who obey licensing laws, are not the problem. They aren’t running about shooting their fellow human beings on a regular basis. The big problem is illegal guns, bought by people who don’t obey the rules. So… ban guns, the good citizens turn them in… and the bad ones keep them. Because they don’t give a damn about the law.
The city of Chicago banned handguns years ago. There are still guns in the city. It’s in the running for murder capital again. Mayor Daley likes to blame a lot of this on Indiana, where guns can easily be bought legally. He says it’s the easy availability of guns in the next state over that leads to so many illegal guns in Chicago and so many deaths. Well, as I said, Indiana has some pretty lenient gun laws. There ARE a lot of guns in this state, and it’s not unusual to get into someone’s car and find a handgun. Yet our murder rate isn’t particularly high, it’s certainly lower than Chicago where guns are outlawed. In the Illinois suburbs where guns are allowed the murder rate isn’t unusually high either. For some reason, though, Chicago has a LOT of gun deaths, even though handguns are and have been illegal to own for decades. Which is why a lot of us don’t think banning guns would do a damn thing to increase safety. Because, based on the evidence in front of our eyes, banning guns does not get rid of them. At least not in this country.
I bet you’d have to talk to a hell of a lot of Aussies/Kiwis/Brits/Irish/etc. before you find one who can say the same thing…
Oh yeah? I’ve been shot at countless times. Fortunately that was all in computer games.
In real life, I know lots of people with handguns. They’re all coppers. I’ve held a hand gun once, but never seen one fired. I’ve seen a shotgun fired once.
And your point is…?
When I was a child I had no choice about where I lived. When I was 18 I moved 300 miles away and have had no problems of that sort since.
Then again, I’ve never been anywhere near a terrorist attack or car bomb - for quite a while there it was an almost regular happening in Ulster and selected parts of Ireland and Britain, wasn’t it? While you folks were reacting with horror at the notion of people with handguns we were all wondering how in the hell folks could handle living in places where people blew up other people.
So which is worse? Handguns or folks blowing up cars on busy streets?
Broomstick? Airman Doors started this thread and his OP was designed to hang shit on us Aussies for going overboard.
I hardly think hi-jacking the thread by reigniting the age old “American handgun debate” vs “The Irish Troubles” contributes much - at least not from this particular Australian’s point of view.
So you have a position on handguns? Good for you. We Aussies wish to make our country as safe as possible. That’s our right. Maybe we’re going about it the wrong way - but to equate your experiences of being shot at numerous times as being proof positive that handguns are not all that dangerous hardly comforts us I feel safe in saying.
All I know is that on a per capita basis, ER surgeons in Australian hospitals report that trauma caused by bullet wounds is amazingly low here compared to that same per capita rate in US hospitals - and ultimately, THAT is the figure that counts.
Take Detroit for instance. According to a documentary I watched last night, Detroit averages 12 gun shot ER surgeries every Friday night. No way that same figure applies in either Sydney or Melbourne. Maybe 3 or 4 per month, tops.
Anyone remember NORAID? Weren’t NORAID to the IRA as OBL is to Al Qaeda?
Well OBL knew where his money went. NORAID AFAICR said the money was going to legit areas of Irish nationalism. They were wrong but that’s what they said.
Well OBL knew where his money went. NORAID AFAICR said the money was going to legit areas of Irish nationalism. They were wrong but that’s what they said.
Well to be honest, if I were forced to choose, I think I would feel a damn sight safer if my neighbours didn’t have the right to bear handguns (believe me, you wouldn’t want to meet some of my neighbours, armed or not). Terrorism is deadly, scary, and shocking, but it isn’t ubiquitous.
Not that the situations are in the least bit comparable.
I think it might be prudent to note that I have lived in Northern Ireland my whole life and have never once held or even seen a gun. Nor have I been involved in any way in any explosion, bomb or any other terrorist threat. There have been several ‘bomb scares’ when I have had to evacuate buildings/ shops but never an explosion. I heard one once when I was at school when a car bomb exploded in Lisburn.
Basically, life continues much as it has anywhere else. There is nothing to ‘handle’.
The situation here, although we do have a high murder rate / population, is confined to very specific areas which are easily avoidable in everyday life. (with the obvious exception of the horrendous public attacks in Omagh, Enniskillen and the like).
If you wish to own a hand gun you can, but it must be registered and remain locked up safely at a gun club / shooting range. You cannot carry or keep your gun at home. This allows those who wish to fire guns for sport to partake in their hobby safely and responsibly without creating a paranoid culture of ‘need’ in which citizens think they require the ability to protect themselves.
**
Yep they’re pretty damn crappy killing tools, according to a quick google, there are only about 20,000 handgun deaths in the US every year. Mere toys, they are.
**
A google on meatcleavers and annual deaths brought up no results. Either meatcleaver killings are very rare or subject to a government cover up. Hard to say which, really.
According to this page there are about 250 or 300 homicides per year in Oklahoma, and about 60% of those are gun related, and most of those are handgun deaths. Every year.
Fertilizer and diesel killed 168 one year, care of McVeigh. Nothing before, nothing since.
So in it’s best year, the ole fertilizer and diesel managed to equal gun deaths in Oklahoma, achieved less than 1% of the handgun total for the whole of the US and less than 0.1% of the handgun total over a 10 year period. I sure am worried about that fertilizer and diesel.
Head still in the sand I see, Broomstick.
They weren’t wrong. They may not have always given an exhaustive list of where the money goes. But unquestionably at least some of it does go exactly where they say it goes, i.e. to supporting prisoners’ families.
I’ll agree to disagree on the meaning of “legit” 
Oh, and Broomstick?
Ulster is a selected part of Ireland, and please don’t use the term as a synonym for “Northern Ireland”.
I wasn’t aware there ever was one - but then, I don’t read every post made to these boards. The point was that there are different sorts of violence people wind up living with. I suppose I could ponder why European soccer fans are so prone to rioting and violence where US football fans seem much better behaved and less prone to go berserk. Obviously, there are cultural differences in how violence is expressed.
Gee, I guess all my mention that yes, handguns ARE dangerous fell on deaf ears.
The point (which obviously I failed to convey) is that handguns are not Super Death Rays. Waving a handgun in the air does not cause all living creatures within a half mile to drop dead.
My other point is that this is not an abstract discussion for me - I’m not someone who has never faced this sort of violence and could be accused of not really knowing about it - which is why remarks about me hiding my head in the sand are hurtful. I do know something about this. First hand. On the other hand, having a couple brushes with this has not thrown me into a hysterical “BAN THEM ALL!” mode of thinking.
SOME hospitals in the US. And others rarely, if ever, see such wounds (and when they do, more likely from accident than malicious intent). I realize that by watching the media you can fall under the impression that the entire US is one homogenous mega-city but it’s not. Most areas of the country are not awash in gun violence, and never have been. It’s concentrated in spots of urban poverty and crowding (rural poverty, for some reason, does not generate this sort of mayhem)
I don’t need a documentary for Detroit - I grew up there. Yes, it’s a cesspool in many ways. But did the documentary mention the nearby areas of Michigan and Ohio where it has been decades since a gun was fired at a human being in anger? Of course not. That’s just not as exciting and interesting.
I moved out of Detroit when I was 18 and for the last 20 years have not had to deal with this sort of thing, even if I am living in an urban area. As I told someone when I was 19 - Chicago is great, since I moved there no one has tried to shoot me, stab me, or rape me. Would prefer to think that’s more a reflection on Detroit than on the entire United States but apparently that’s not how others see it.
And for the vast majority of Americans the same could be said for handgun violence. There might be an occassional scare in their life, but they never actually are shot at. There is nothing to “handle”.
Of course, from the media you get an entirely different impression. Listen to the nightly news you think the entire world is knee deep in blood. It isn’t.
Again, the same here - stay out of overcrowded urban slums you are unlikely to ever have a problem. I’ve easily avoided such areas for the last two decades. It’s not handguns alone that cause problems, it’s handguns + overcrowding + poverty. (Rural poverty doesn’t seem to generate this problem - it’s definately an urban problem)
Well, that would most likely solve the “I’m a target shooter argument”.
Couple questions, though - how are guns transported from one facility to another? (I’m presuming they are occassionally bought, repaired, people moved, etc.)
What about hunting? Or is hunting banned in your area?
What about museum collections or the like? Or do you have those?