Australian gun buyback explained.

[Alien]

I owned guns all my life until a few short years ago. The paperwork and cost involved peed me off to the extent I sold my guns. At first you had to own at least 5 acres and have a reason to hold a gun permit. ie foxes taking your chooks, dingoes etc. No probs. Then they changed it to a minimum requirement of 40 acres, no probs, I have 40 acres. Then the permit only lasted 5 years and you have to renew. Well, the paperwork arrived in a semi trailer along with a demand for big biccies as well. I took one look and said, "well, if you are trying to intimidate me, it's working." I took my guns and sold them to a dealer for 'his' price and bought a big cane knife. Also got sick of cops arriving at the door to check where I had them stored. I do miss my guns. Just wish we were allowed sidearms.
It is illegal to have in your possession any part of a firearm, even an old wood stock or bent barrel or a single bullet.

 

[crazyal]

As our population in Australia increases and guns become more prevalent its natural to expect gun deaths to increase. BUT the real point of interest now is not HOW MANY die but WHO is dying. The most common deaths now are probably suicides, and bikies shooting each other. Neither are a threat to me or my family. Frankly the more bikies and drug runners who kill each other the better as far as I'm concerned. I dont mix with them or care about them. What we do NOT have now are nutcases going on a rampage killing dozens of innocent strangers in shopping centres and schools.

For the average person Australia IS a safer place than it otherwise would have been. Pro-gun advocates don't seem to get this point and just seem to concentrate on total deaths.

Is it safer than New Zealand?

 

[westcliffe01]

Dave, do you have a concealed carry permit ? When I got mine here in MI, they give you a CD rom that contains the 440 pages of state law relating to firearms. Federal law not included.

Now I ask you: What do you suppose is accomplished by all that paper ? Does it really make any of us safer ? I think not. The majority of that papers serves only to criminalize people who have harmed no-one, and thereby strip you of your God given rights as a free man for 3 years, 8 years or for life. Both parties have been complicit in this process for decades.

Meanwhile, those intent on breaking the law continue to do so without any impediments, frequently going unpunished by liberal justices. And it is precisely these people who result in the LEO deaths (statistically proven) as well as the absolute majority of gun related deaths. You hardly think killers are going to consult their lawyer, read the law or notice a sign on a building, unless they know it makes their job easy..

 

[westcliffe01]

Any peace officer had better not be complacent when pulling over a car, especially if the owner is NOT a listed firearm owner (who HAS to keep a clean criminal record). There is nothing any lawyer, politician, king, emperor or anyone else can do regarding the danger posed by criminals - EXCEPT to be armed and ready and maintain a good situational awareness.

Statistically, the danger posed by concealed carry holders to anyone else is lower than that posed by law enforcement. So it is highly offensive when people wish to suggest that law abiding gun owners (including the NRA) are in any way responsible or liable for the "gun violence" which occurs in our "Gun Ban" liberal cities like DC, Chicago, schools or any other place for that matter. There are no facts that make this connection.

Our LEO's shouldn't have to worry that their lives are endangered by some punk with a gun every time they pull over a car. If you have a solution to that problem, please speak up.

 

[TripleR]

Any peace officer had better not be complacent when pulling over a car, especially if the owner is NOT a listed firearm owner (who HAS to keep a clean criminal record). There is nothing any lawyer, politician, king, emperor or anyone else can do regarding the danger posed by criminals - EXCEPT to be armed and ready and maintain a good situational awareness.

Statistically, the danger posed by concealed carry holders to anyone else is lower than that posed by law enforcement. So it is highly offensive when people wish to suggest that law abiding gun owners (including the NRA) are in any way responsible or liable for the "gun violence" which occurs in our "Gun Ban" liberal cities like DC, Chicago, schools or any other place for that matter. There are no facts that make this connection.

Good points, my son was a Police Officer for several years and ALL cars should be approached as if they might be dangerous; no way to know who might pull a gun, knife, club, etc.; courteous but cautious. In 2004 our laws were changed to allow concealed carry permits, eliminate the "Permit to Acquire a Concealable Firearm" and allow anyone to legally carry a loaded firearm in their car without the need for a permit.

Anti gun people and authorities warned of blood running in the streets, LEO's being shot and basically the end of civilized society as we now it; nothing happened, no increased use of firearms, no increase in shootings, essentially a non issue.

 

[dodge man]

First off, the original post shows the article was in the New York Times. Enough said there, you know how its going to be slanted. Second, the article is from the person who implemented all these gun controls laws. Is he going to say they failed? Of course he isn't.

Third thing, his comments on our Bill Of Rights. Did anybody catch his statement. He says they don't have a Bill of Rights in Australia and he thinks thats good. He also comments that our courts have to much power. I'll read between the lines and say he is talking about the recent Supreme Court rulings on the right of an individual to own firearms. These two statements from him, on what I consider two pretty important parts of our form of Government scare the heck out of me and tell me he should keep his comments to himself.

 

[zonta223]

This video might explain it pretty well:

Gun Control in Australia

Please if you are going to use a video to show Australian gun control at least make it a truthful one.
1) The number of guns confiscated was nothing like the total mentioned in this video. If you look at the guns being destroyed you will see that a lot of the are SMLE bolt action rifles and single/double barrel shotguns none of which were covered by the buy back law. The owners could have legally kept possession of their guns but they chose to hand them in and take the money.
2) The rubbish quoted about people being attacked in their own homes and not being able to defend themselves. In every one of the cases the home owners could have legally purchased a rifle/shotgun for their own protection but they like most other Australians chose not to do so.
3) The gun collector could have kept his collection of guns.

I note the mention of the NRA a few times in this video makes one wonder who paid for this one sided, incorrect, misleading video.

If you want to post about gun control in Australia please make it factual and not this rubbish.

And yes I do own weapons and would have no problems purchasing more if I needed them but I don't "Live" for my guns

 

[TripleR]

Please if you are going to use a video to show Australian gun control at least make it a truthful one.
1) The number of guns confiscated was nothing like the total mentioned in this video. If you look at the guns being destroyed you will see that a lot of the are SMLE bolt action rifles and single/double barrel shotguns none of which were covered by the buy back law. The owners could have legally kept possession of their guns but they chose to hand them in and take the money.
2) The rubbish quoted about people being attacked in their own homes and not being able to defend themselves. In every one of the cases the home owners could have legally purchased a rifle/shotgun for their own protection but they like most other Australians chose not to do so.
3) The gun collector could have kept his collection of guns.

I note the mention of the NRA a few times in this video makes one wonder who paid for this one sided, incorrect, misleading video.

If you want to post about gun control in Australia please make it factual and not this rubbish.

And yes I do own weapons and would have no problems purchasing more if I needed them but I don't "Live" for my guns

Your description of gun ownership in Australia sounds much different than another Australian in #21, so you will understand our confusion.

 

[zonta223]

I owned guns all my life until a few short years ago. The paperwork and cost involved peed me off to the extent I sold my guns. At first you had to own at least 5 acres and have a reason to hold a gun permit. ie foxes taking your chooks, dingoes etc. No probs. Then they changed it to a minimum requirement of 40 acres, no probs, I have 40 acres. Then the permit only lasted 5 years and you have to renew. Well, the paperwork arrived in a semi trailer along with a demand for big biccies as well. I took one look and said, "well, if you are trying to intimidate me, it's working." I took my guns and sold them to a dealer for 'his' price and bought a big cane knife. Also got sick of cops arriving at the door to check where I had them stored. I do miss my guns. Just wish we were allowed sidearms.
It is illegal to have in your possession any part of a firearm, even an old wood stock or bent barrel or a single bullet.

I don't know when you last purchased a gun but your information seems to be out of date or wrong?? Yes you do need a permit to even own parts of guns but I have never had to renew any permit and can find no mention of time limits in any of my paperwork?
I purchased a shot gun last year and their was no requirement on land owned etc. The dealer just processed the paperwork as did the police and it was mine. You can even purchase weapons interstate all you have to do is fill in the dealers form, he processes it , sends the gun to you local police station by mail, you register it there and you are free to walk out with it.
I agree with you on the cost of getting the paperwork done. If you buy a second hand gun it can cost you more getting the paperwork done than it did for the gun. But most of this is due to the dealer. They could chose to process the paperwork for nothing but they find it an easy way to increase the margin on their sale. Try different dealers they all quote different prices it is not a set government charge.

 

[Alan L.]

I would suggest that to fill this forum with the masses of statistics required to validate an argument would be counter productive as not many people would have the hours and hours required to read it and then extrapolate a concise opinion
Suffice to say on news reports from both countries (Australia & USA) all crime seems to be lower here on a population basis however it is growing.
With specific regard to the gun buy back scheme we are now back to the same level of gun ownership as prior to the commencement of this scheme
The one thing that is different between the Australian and American ethic is that the vast majority of Australians do not have a fixation on gun ownership.
Americans passion for the 2nd amendment is scary
The last 2 comments were not written to offend but are my opinion based on information here in my country.

It is not a fixation on gun ownership, its a fixation on freedom. No offense taken, but the 2nd amendment guarantees this right and we won't give it up. Never know when a tyrant will take over, and I think there is a good indication that we have one right now.