So much for gun control

[Maka]

Originally Posted by Stugots

Not to mention a registry vulnerable to infiltration exposing our personal and firearm details to anyone.


Yeah. I don't know what state you're in but here in NSW you have to also remove, relocate and lock up the bolt or firing mechanism in a separate compartment. Karj, this is a separate issue to sporting shooters, but compounded by our atrocious judiciary, these restrictions have become less about public safety and more about the welfare of criminals and removing the ability for householders to defend themselves and their property.

If the judiciary wants to keep going down the path of being softcocks, the state will have to make some tough decisions regarding LAFO's access to their firearms for self defence.

Thanks for the bit of info blacked out above, we had another 5 firearms stolen the other day in our area and basically after reading the above i feel a lot safer. Kudo's to the gun owners here for telling it how it is, im sure there are alot of non gun owners like me that didnt realize a) how tough its to get a licensed firearm b) how fastidious you guys are in making sure your firearms are secured c) how much b#@$c&^% you cop for having them

People like you guys dont deserve the negative scrutiny or heat.

As for the 3d printer, when the times right i'll grab one so i can make my world class golf putters lol!

cheers,Maka

[Reaper8]

"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.
You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.
These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job.
That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.
It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone.
The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.
It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

[Stugots]

Originally Posted by flappist

Australian gun laws are not designed to make society safer they are designed to make it such a pain to own a gun that you just give up

It's funny, at the same time they'll try to milk you for all you have in the process. The government exploit the registry as a cash cow. I remember I had to correct a spelling anomily in my name and while it was free for my drivers licence, to do the same thing on my firearms licence cost $75, a waiting period while the police & registry approved it and the threat of my guns being confiscated if I didn't cough up the cash by a certain date. The PTA fee is a crock of **** too.

[karj]

You haven't quite done your due diligence on that one Reaper8

http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.co...-the-big-time/

Regardless of the author, I find the whole argument completely uncompelling. If you flood any market with a product or service, there will be an increased uptake of that product or service. More people carrying guns = more *bad* people carrying guns. You could argue that it would mean more *good* people carrying guns that could intervene to stop the *bad* people... but the argument ultimately falls flat because all you would end up with is a shoot out and stray bullets going everywhere. Better off trying to regulate the market in this case.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by karj

If only a bit late, I agree with you. They may not send out letters for renewal because if the mail was illegally intercepted the mailing address would likely be where the guns are stored, and putting that in a letter would be a risk to the public as well as the gun owner.

You are kidding right?

How to find where guns are owned legally 1:01

Part A (city) go to the gun range, as everyone who owns a gun in a city must attend the range regularly they will all be there at some time. As the only way you can transport a gun is in a car and all cars must have clearly visible number plates for speed cameras just write down the plate and then use any number of freedom of info systems to find where the car lives.

Part B (country) go to any house.

It is an acknowledged fact by our own ABS that there are more legal guns in Australia today than before 1996 and it is estimated by our own AFP that only 1 gun in 3 is registered and owned legally.

Now a far as the "quickly amass an arsenal" paranioa when applying for a PTA it does not matter how many guns you want up to 30 at once, they are $18 each and are processed concurrently. If more than 30 are wanted the storage area must comply to a H/D standard regardless of class including A/B, the next limit is 150 after which the storage must be commercial standard.

[karj]

Originally Posted by flappist

You are kidding right?

How to find where guns are owned legally 1:01

Part A (city) go to the gun range, as everyone who owns a gun in a city must attend the range regularly they will all be there at some time. As the only way you can transport a gun is in a car and all cars must have clearly visible number plates for speed cameras just write down the plate and then use any number of freedom of info systems to find where the car lives.

Part B (country) go to any house.

You obviously knwow something I don't. What freedom of info system can you legally tap into to find the address of a registered car from a number plate?

Originally Posted by flappist

It is an acknowledged fact by our own ABS that there are more legal guns in Australia today than before 1996 and it is estimated by our own AFP that only 1 gun in 3 is registered and owned legally.

It's also acknowledged by the ABS that gun use in crime has decreased since 1996.

Originally Posted by flappist

Now a far as the "quickly amass an arsenal" paranioa when applying for a PTA it does not matter how many guns you want up to 30 at once, they are $18 each and are processed concurrently. If more than 30 are wanted the storage area must comply to a H/D standard regardless of class including A/B, the next limit is 150 after which the storage must be commercial standard.

Well I would be uneasy with someone owning 30 semi-automatic/automatic assault weapons. I would probably classify that as an arsenal. Are there rules that dictate how many high powered weapons that one can own?

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by karj

Why do you have a problem with police making sure that firearm owners are well versed in safety and conducting background checks when someone is applying for a firearm license? Have you ever experienced or known someone who has suffered from domestic violence? Gets a bit interesting when firearms are involved...


Why do you take issue with explaining what sort of firearm you're getting and what it will be used for?


Would you really want criminals breaking into your house and stealing your unsecured firearms?


How do you expect them to enforce the law?


That would be a bit underhanded. We don't have entrapment laws in Aus.


What would you class as a minor criminal offence.


Do you really have a problem with that? I had a relative who shot himself in the head after separating from his wife and the guy in this latest US Batman massacre is pretty obviously mentally unstable.


Again, why do you take issue with explaining what sort of firearm you're getting and what it will be used for?


Best practice to do these things in a controlled environment where you can account for all the variables.



Well I don't imagine you would want the firearms in full view... and if someone were to break into your car or steal it, you wouldn't want them to have easy access to your guns, *especially* if there are any documents that identify your address in the car.



They do. The laws apply to all.

I do appreciate the frustration that you feel having to jump through hoops, but for the greater guarantee of public safety... we have to find some acceptable balance between "no restriction" and "ban them completely".

I have very little problem with it...but the issue is that as a law abiding firearm owner, I have to "jump through hoops", yet they are only just now starting (in Queensland) to look at increasing penalties for the criminal misuse of guns (something the Sporting Shooters has always pushed for), rather than punish people for simply wanting to own them.

I think John Howard said it best at a Liberal conferance about the gun laws before they were brought in back in the mid nineties...he said "I realise that we are going to be placing restrictions and penalties on people who have never and will never break the law".
So why do it?

Also sickening are the statements that a few may remember from the anti gun lobby and doctors organisations who promised that banning certain types of guns and restricting people would lower the tragic suicide rate. They claimed it would go down markedly once guns were harder to get.
A year or two later, it was tragically apparent that the suicide rate had continued it's "normal" yearly rise, and guns as a method had been replaced by other methods such as hanging or poison.
The comments from the anti gun lobby? "Well at least those poor people didn't shoot themselves"...honestly...

So yes, you can pass all the laws you like, restrict my useage of firearms, make it very hard and very expensive for me to own and keep my guns, make it that they can be taken away from me at a moments notice and be very hard to get back again...


...but the awkward fact is that it isn't me, as a law abiding gun owner who does a bit of target practice now and then and who will just sigh and comply with whatever convoluted restrictions are in place so I can keep doing my chosen sport, that you have to worry about...

[Reaper8]

the big thing is they can increse the penalty to whatever they like but it is up to the judges to impose it instead of just slappin people on the wrist like they do now.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

I don't think people who don't own firearms realise the astounding mountain of crap legitimate gun owners have to wade through to maintain our licence and keep our guns...

I had to sit through a gun safety course, then apply for a licence, then wait for a background check (It was about three months back in the late nineties when I was forced to get a licence because of the gun laws, not it's up near 5 to 7 months apparently), I had to have the cops prying into my background to make sure I had no priors or AVO's against me.
Then you can apply to buy a gun. Then it's another wait. You also have to prove a "valid reason" to obtain a firearm.
Once you get one, you must keep it stored in a locked steel safe bolted to the floor and wall, with ammunition and removable rifle bolts stored separately in another lock up box.
Then you can be subject to a random "inspection of the storage facilities" by police at any time. I've had it done once...the police turned up unannounced, asked to see my gun safe, and I had to take them inside the house and show them, as well as show them my registration forms and licence. Importantly, I also have informed the missus that if they should happen to turn up one day when I am not home, she is to pretend no knowledge whatsoever of the location of the key to the gun safe. If they asked her to have a look at the safe, she can show them, but if they sneakily try to get her to open it, boom, I'm guilty of "giving access to firearms to an unlicenced person", and I lose my guns and probably my licence as well as a court appearance and heavy fine and criminal record.
If I get convicted of some criminal offence, however minor, I lose my licence and my guns. If I become mentally unstable, my doctor is obligated to inform police and again I lose my guns and licence.
If I want to buy another rifle, I again have to provide a "valid reason to acquire" (even though I already have for the other guns I own), and wait until it's approved.
I can't just go out in the remote bush around our town and have a fun time shooting at tin cans and made up targets...that's illegal.
When I transport my firearms in the car, they have to be locked in the boot, or, if the car doesn't have a boot, it must be in a locked contained chained to the floor by some means, if you want to get really technical with the finer points of the law.


Shame that criminals don't face the same restrictions on their activities...

Might as well as just buy what you want from that shady guy you see standing by the alley way with the long leather jacket.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Might as well as just buy what you want from that shady guy you see standing by the alley way with the long leather jacket.

Here! That sort of thing doesn't go on...the only dangerous murderous guns in society are those owned by responsible gun owners who keep them locked away.

Oh...and the ones stolen from the military or police stations...and the ones the bikie gangs are continually having taken off them in raids...and the ones that the authorities say are "flooding in" from Asia by mail order (somehow...not sure how that works...)...and the ones that criminals for some reason never turned up and registered like good citizens during any of the amnesties...and so forth...

[flappist]

Originally Posted by karj

You obviously knwow something I don't. What freedom of info system can you legally tap into to find the address of a registered car from a number plate?


It's also acknowledged by the ABS that gun use in crime has decreased since 1996.



Well I would be uneasy with someone owning 30 semi-automatic/automatic assault weapons. I would probably classify that as an arsenal. Are there rules that dictate how many high powered weapons that one can own?

Part 1) Again, you are kidding right? How do you think all the shopping centres etc. issue "parking fines" or insurance companies follow up claims.

Part 2) That is because they rather sneakily classified suicide as a crime which was in fact the vast majority of gun deaths while the vast majority of suicides were not by firearm. Check the raw data not the spun version.

Part 3) The maximum number of semi auto rifles owned by shooters is ZERO, none, nill, nada.

The only non govt legal users of semi auto high powered rifles are professional feral animal control workers who must renew the license and registration every year and produce actual proof that the firearm is actually being used on a regular commercial basis.

[Pis-ton broke]

Originally Posted by Conundrum

As an abiding licensed shooter it's not me you need to worry about. It's the ones who steal them in the first place (even from police stations. Yes you read right)

yeah, me, my dad, and my friend have had our guns stolen out of our houses.

[karj]

Originally Posted by flappist

Part 1) Again, you are kidding right? How do you think all the shopping centres etc. issue "parking fines" or insurance companies follow up claims.

I was only just suggesting a reason for why renewal reminders may not put in writing and sent to a mailing address - I don't actually know the motives for why they choose not to send out a renewal letter. Mypoint is though that most people don't have access to the systems to look up addresses from rego numbers.

Originally Posted by flappist

Part 2) That is because they rather sneakily classified suicide as a crime which was in fact the vast majority of gun deaths while the vast majority of suicides were not by firearm. Check the raw data not the spun version.

I'm not so sure about that to be honest. I have checked the data and the analysis that I've read from the ABS would not suggest that the classification of suicide as a crime is the reason the stats are down for guns used in crime.

Originally Posted by flappist

Part 3) The maximum number of semi auto rifles owned by shooters is ZERO, none, nill, nada.

The only non govt legal users of semi auto high powered rifles are professional feral animal control workers who must renew the license and registration every year and produce actual proof that the firearm is actually being used on a regular commercial basis.

I personally think that is a good aspect of about our gun laws. Do you agree with the restriction?

[nstg8a]

Seriously? You can't own any semi auto here?

Pretty sure back home it's only military style semi autos, and full autos, plus a maximum clip capacity are the main restrictions.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by karj

I personally think that is a good aspect of about our gun laws. Do you agree with the restriction?

Well in that I was in the Australian team shooting in the world championships in USA in 1993 using a 223 cal semi auto rifle (AR15 actually) and have a cabinet full of national, state and regional trophies that I won with it.......no I do not.

[karj]

Originally Posted by flappist

Well in that I was in the Australian team shooting in the world championships in USA in 1993 using a 223 cal semi auto rifle (AR15 actually) and have a cabinet full of national, state and regional trophies that I won with it.......no I do not.

So what gun controls do you think we should have, or are you of the opinion that we should have no gun control? Not being argumentative, just curious is all.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by karj

So what gun controls do you think we should have, or are you of the opinion that we should have no gun control? Not being argumentative, just curious is all.

Next to none personally, with the exception of doctor notified mental health illness, and for guns to be 'confiscated for XX period' in domestic voilence cases.

Don't own guns in OZ, had them in PNG when older, but first as a kid up there, circa early 70's - old PNG RSL chief use to line up soda cans and issued kids with pellet handguns to knock em down, out at his property. Thank christ the PC/dumbed-down tentancles eminating from Whitlams Australia hadn't reached us at that time.

Karj, you'd be delighted that the UN arms control treaty, strongly advocated by our delightful idiot Carr, is before the US congress, smack on time with the latest mass shooting event. The idea being to eliminate by stealth the US second amendment.

Noted then the idiot Bloomberg (Yes, of the financial org and NY mayor) calling for ALL US police to 'stop work' if US citizens refused to hand in their arms. Do that in LA and you'd have mass rioting within hours. I no longer watch Bloomberg. Poor America, becoming all Stasi like.

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Next to none personally, with the exception of doctor notified mental health illness, and for guns to be 'confiscated for XX period' in domestic voilence cases.

Don't own guns in OZ, had them in PNG when older, but first as a kid up there, circa early 70's - old PNG RSL chief use to line up soda cans and issued kids with pellet handguns to knock em down, out at his property. Thank christ the PC/dumbed-down tentancles eminating from Whitlams Australia hadn't reached us at that time.

Karj, you'd be delighted that the UN arms control treaty, strongly advocated by our delightful idiot Carr, is before the US congress, smack on time with the latest mass shooting event. The idea being to eliminate by stealth the US second amendment.

Noted then the idiot Bloomberg (Yes, of the financial org and NY mayor) calling for ALL US police to 'stop work' if US citizens refused to hand in their arms. Do that in LA and you'd have mass rioting within hours. I no longer watch Bloomberg. Poor America, becoming all Stasi like.

The NRA are working hard to ensure Obama and the UN madness does not get through.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

Seriously? You can't own any semi auto here?

Pretty sure back home it's only military style semi autos, and full autos, plus a maximum clip capacity are the main restrictions.

Nope...no semi-autos, no pump action shotguns (but pump action rifles are legal...for the time being...), and certainly no "military style assault rifles" as the idiots like to label them.

I handed in a perfectly good Bentley 12 gauge 8 shot pump action shotgun back when the gun laws came in, lining up with all the other gun owners to hand them in to a police setup where they would pay you for the now-illegal gun and cheerily ask if you wanted to go out the back and witness a big grinder go straight through the action...

As well as the comments in the line up about "I wonder how many criminals are here turning in illegal guns", I said to the cop behind the counter "I wonder how many illegal guns are never going to be turned in at this sort of thing?", and he said he had lost five rifles under the new laws, and regarding illegal guns in the hands of criminals "We don't like to think about that...".

[flappist]

Originally Posted by karj

So what gun controls do you think we should have, or are you of the opinion that we should have no gun control? Not being argumentative, just curious is all.

Well the basis of the laws should be that anything required for a non military purpose should be available to those who would use it.

The problem has always been that the primary protagonists in the anti gun movement are only interested in banning all guns with a single minded zealotry that makes Osama bin laden look like a moderate.

They use hollywood examples to convince the average person that a semi auto handgun can explode a car and a semi auto rifle can kill 100 people in 10 different directions in a single 5000 round burst. It was on TV it must be real.

The whole "semi auto" thing is just the leading edge of a divide and conquour campaign in that they are the "killer guns" and ordinary 10 shot bold actions rifles are not.
It suspect that millions of victims in wars up to the current era would probably disagree if they were still alive in that these were the rifiles used by allied troop in the 2 world wars, by much of the Vietcong and still used in much of Africa in internal skirmishes. The TV spin that every kid has a shiny new AK47 is just that, spin.

Gun laws have never worked anywhere in the world and even our poster child Martin Bryant acquired his rifle illegally as he did not have a gun license and bought and ex Victorian police rifle on the black market. (This is not opinion, it is fact, I was offered the same rifles but they were a bit too expensive for me). N.B. I held a dealers license at the time.

But back to the question. Gun laws should be made in the same way as other laws with consideration to all not just a few rabid zealots that may or may not be politicians.

I owned an AR15 (actually several) from 1981 to 1996. I used it in competition in Australia and overseas. In 1993 I shot in USA and while I did not get a medal (I came 15th) I gained a lot of very valuable experience and was getting ready for 1997 when I was told I could not compete any more and my $10,000 competition rifle must be destroyed.

Just down the road from me are a mother and daughter who have both won the world IPSC pistol championship in addition to Australasian and Asiapac many times. They have to practice with restricted pistols and only when they leave Australia can they acquire the appropriate equipment. (think race cars must be speed limited to 100km/h while being driven in Australia but ok once they are overseas).

Hunting is another focus for the gun haters. Once recreational hunting of feral animals was a common passtime. I helped keep the feral animal plague under control. Now we have a HUGE problem with potential extinctions of native wildlife from cats, dogs and pigs etc.

Applying gun law mentality to other situations.
Ban boxing as there are too many pub assaults.
Ban motor racing to stop hoons.
Ban competitive swimming and fishing to stop drowning.

And it goes on.

What is the catch cry...."If it saves just one life"......

[BHDOGS]

While in a perfect world both sides of the argument work in reality they are both just ******** bein said by whichever side of the argument your on do I want guns in the hands of criminals no do I wanna restrict people rights to have fun no but you can have both and shootings like at the batman just reinforce how many people you can kill with the right tools my thoughts are personaly nobody should have guns we should go back to swords and have duels at dawn and settle things like men but when you've got criminal boys in men's body's running around being **** tards I'm afraid the anti gun lobby will eventually win

[Brent]

Just tagging along on the end of this, but this fear of an "arsenal" is an interesting point. Its an emotive word for sure, like reference to "high powered"......begs the question what defines "high powered", but sounds good though, right?

Back to the "arsenal". What's the definition here? 2 firearms? 3? Maybe 4? Do they have to be of the same type or calibre? If I have a shotgun, bolt action .22, a lever action scrub gun, a .223 target rifle, and say a medium game rifle, that's 5 firearms. All for different uses mind you. Is this an arsenal though?

Also, whilst I can't speak for the skills of others here, last time I hunted I was pretty much occupied using one firearm at once. A shotgun or rifle is a two handed effort to hold, aim, fire and then to reload. I can stand around a pile of 50 guns if I want, but its irrelevant, as I can only use one at a time.

Unless I am raising my own militia unit, for the life of me I can't really see the point in whether a person owns one firearm or ten, but then it sells more papers if laws are passed to prohibit "people from owning a vast arsenal of high powered weapons" as opposed to "owning several firearms of various uses."

[chamb0]

Originally Posted by flappist

Hunting is another focus for the gun haters. Once recreational hunting of feral animals was a common passtime. I helped keep the feral animal plague under control. Now we have a HUGE problem with potential extinctions of native wildlife from cats, dogs and pigs etc.

If only it was so simple. While working in the national park service I was disappointed to see the deliberate translocation of pigs and deer to areas of public land by hunters looking to further their hunting opportunities. A major portion of feral populations for some species (especially deer) around Australia have been established in this way. I guess as a natural result of this I feel sceptical that some hunter's motivations are to provide a selfless ecological service to our nation. In saying this I also acknowledge this sort of behaviour is not representive of all hunters, and in fact some of our staff were/are recreational hunters as well.

Victoria currently relies heavily on shooting deer as a control method (as well as attempted containment) by recreational and commercial shooters. Our ever-expanding deer population suggests however that approach is not working effectively for a variety of reasons and a better management strategy is needed.

I might also mention that Australia had a

Originally Posted by flappist

HUGE problem with potential extinctions of native wildlife from cats, dogs and pigs etc.

before, and during, your own effort to keep the plague under control.

[HLC]

Originally Posted by karj

You obviously knwow something I don't. What freedom of info system can you legally tap into to find the address of a registered car from a number plate?


It's also acknowledged by the ABS that gun use in crime has decreased since 1996.



Well I would be uneasy with someone owning 30 semi-automatic/automatic assault weapons. I would probably classify that as an arsenal. Are there rules that dictate how many high powered weapons that one can own?

You make me laugh champ.

As a licensed firearm owner you might call be bias, but who else will defend our sport, and the good guys doing the right thing..

Legal system to obtain addresses? Online Crash Reporting System in WA will spit out rego details, owner names, address, phone number, car make, model and colour... how do I know this? When I got hit by a car whilst cycling, I reported the crash using this tool and verified the drivers details by inputting his car rego. Had that been me, he would of known the address of my firearms IF he knew I was a shooter..

In regards to gun crime decreasing, it was decreasing before 1996 too. Look at the trend line and you will see a lovely decreasing trend with 2 spikes on the radar for the tragedies in 96 and 02.

I've know people with a lot more than 30 firearms. But tell me, how many can you use at the same time? I've only got 2 hands.. And I don't know a range in the country that will let me load up both my pistols and shoot them one in each hand tomb raider style at the same time...


IF anyone is going to do anything naughty here in AUS with a firearm, they wouldn't have taken the months (even years) to 'amass' their arsenal legally...

They'll find a few shady characters and have what they need within a couple of hours, at a price of course... Just like drugs, just like tasers, just like black market car parts... Etc etc.

[GhiaEB]

Whilst not a gun owner. I would like to ask a few questions.

What was the violent home invasion crime rate like before Howard's gun control measures and what is it now?

What was the crime rate for drive by shootings before Howard's gun control measures and what is it now?

What was the amount of illegal firearm related injurys before Howard's gun control measures and what is it now?

I don't know these answers but I am curious to know.

[anto]

Originally Posted by Pis-ton broke

yeah i reckon three d printers are quite exciting as an emerging technlogy . I will get one to , it will be great for making mock ups for molds for aluminiun castings. And a lot of other uses to, and they will just get better and better.

.

you will need to know how to use a 3d modelling program and actually make the needed part in the software which you would output as a .dxf file

I did some of this work for Peter Jackson ( lord of the rings director ) a while back making ww1 biplanes in model kit form. Back then this stuff was the domain of the rich !!

the best unit around for home use atm is probably the makerbot printer
http://www.makerbot.com/

Did a tour of the high school my daughter is enrolled in and they are actually teaching/using these as apart of their technical studies now...pretty cool I rekon.

[karj]

Originally Posted by HLC

You make me laugh champ.

As a licensed firearm owner you might call be bias, but who else will defend our sport, and the good guys doing the right thing..

Legal system to obtain addresses? Online Crash Reporting System in WA will spit out rego details, owner names, address, phone number, car make, model and colour... how do I know this? When I got hit by a car whilst cycling, I reported the crash using this tool and verified the drivers details by inputting his car rego. Had that been me, he would of known the address of my firearms IF he knew I was a shooter..

In regards to gun crime decreasing, it was decreasing before 1996 too. Look at the trend line and you will see a lovely decreasing trend with 2 spikes on the radar for the tragedies in 96 and 02.

I've know people with a lot more than 30 firearms. But tell me, how many can you use at the same time? I've only got 2 hands.. And I don't know a range in the country that will let me load up both my pistols and shoot them one in each hand tomb raider style at the same time...


IF anyone is going to do anything naughty here in AUS with a firearm, they wouldn't have taken the months (even years) to 'amass' their arsenal legally...

They'll find a few shady characters and have what they need within a couple of hours, at a price of course... Just like drugs, just like tasers, just like black market car parts... Etc etc.

I'm glad to have been a source of amusement for you. Be clear that I'm not advocating for a ban on firearms and I do actually enjoy watching the olympic shooting... my position is simply that we require a legislative approach to try and manage firearms. I do realise that it is inconvenient and restrictive for responsible owners and not 100% effective.

I can't claim, and have never claimed to know whether our laws are too harsh, too soft or just right... but I don't think that background checks, a licensing scheme, storage requirements, and harsher restrictions on *some* firearms is particularly unreasonable. Maybe some people don't have a problem with people owning AR-15's, but I would prefer them not to be so easy to access that they would end up in the hands of a low-level garden variety thief, or someone who is deranged. Quite simply, it's not you guys I'm worried about.

I am curious about the Online Crash Reporting System in WA that you referred to... (I assume this site: https://www.crashreport.com.au/)

What was the deal with that? It does say this...

No personal identifying information will be released to other parties.

The Insurance Commission of WA and WA Police will ensure that the information provided on this form will be treated confidentially. See the Insurance Commission and WA Police privacy policies.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by GhiaEB

Whilst not a gun owner. I would like to ask a few questions.

What was the violent home invasion crime rate like before Howard's gun control measures and what is it now?

What was the crime rate for drive by shootings before Howard's gun control measures and what is it now?

What was the amount of illegal firearm related injurys before Howard's gun control measures and what is it now?

I don't know these answers but I am curious to know.

...watch the nightly news...bikie gangs in particular on the Gold Coast seem to have little problem sourcing whatever firearms they want, up to full autos which have always been illegal for the public to own...

[GhiaEB]

Originally Posted by karj

I'm glad to have been a source of amusement for you. Be clear that I'm not advocating for a ban on firearms and I do actually enjoy watching the olympic shooting... my position is simply that we require a legislative approach to try and manage firearms. I do realise that it is inconvenient and restrictive for responsible owners and not 100% effective.

I can't claim, and have never claimed to know whether our laws are too harsh, too soft or just right... but I don't think that background checks, a licensing scheme, storage requirements, and harsher restrictions on *some* firearms is particularly unreasonable. Maybe some people don't have a problem with people owning AR-15's, but I would prefer them not to be so easy to access that they would end up in the hands of a low-level garden variety thief, or someone who is deranged. Quite simply, it's not you guys I'm worried about.

I am curious about the Online Crash Reporting System in WA that you referred to... (I assume this site: https://www.crashreport.com.au/)

What was the deal with that? It does say this...

Wait hang on. You agree with tough gun laws, but then say your not worried about legal owners? So you are saying its the owners of illegal weapons, that's the issue? Having tough/tougher gun laws doesn't affect illegal weapon owners. As they don't adhere to the laws anyhow.

Not having a go at ya mate, but that doesn't make sence. It would be like banning all V8s because people with unrego'd ones keep doing burnouts. Or making all alcohol illegal because of underage drinking.

[GhiaEB]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

...watch the nightly news...bikie gangs in particular on the Gold Coast seem to have little problem sourcing whatever firearms they want, up to full autos which have always been illegal for the public to own...

All three questions I posed, I beleave the stats have increased, not decreased since gun control. Which begs the question, what have the tougher gun laws actually done!?

It seems now that only the cops and crims have guns. Here's another question, What is the stabbing rate now vs pre gun control?