[cuchulainn]

from the Edinburgh Evening News

http://www.edinburghnews.com/index.cfm?id=517142003Dunblane dad tells of banned gun fears

BY JANE HAMILTON CRIME REPORTER


THE father of a girl shot dead in the Dunblane tragedy has spoken of his "major concern" after it emerged more than one gun a day banned in the wake of the tragedy had been handed into Lothian and Borders Police during a month-long amnesty.

Mick North, who lost his only daughter Sophie, five, said it was a "worry" that so many illegal guns were still in circulation despite the ban.

His concerns have been echoed by police chiefs, who said they found the numbers "alarming" as they revealed 56 banned firearms had been surrendered to police during a month-long nationwide amnesty.

The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997, the year after amateur shooting enthusiast Thomas Hamilton shot dead 16 schoolchildren, their teacher and himself.

The 1997 Firearm (Amendment) Act banned handguns above .22 calibre and restricted smaller calibre weapons to secure gun clubs. It was hoped the measure would reduce the number of handguns available to criminals.

Today, Mr North said: "It is a major concern and worry that so many of these are still in circulation despite the ban. I think at the time the ban was introduced we all knew one measure alone was not going to deal with this issue and what happened at Dunblane should serve as a constant reminder of how devastating these weapons can be."

Mr North added the positive aspect of the campaign was that "these are now off the streets" and said: "The Government are introducing much tougher penalties but more needs to be done ."

Deputy Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police, Tom Wood, said: "We’re concerned about the numbers of firearms still in circulation within the force area.

"Despite the ban the numbers of handguns we received was alarming. However, it’s pleasing in some respects that a large number of banned handguns are now off the streets and not able to cause harm to any innocent people. We are very pleased with the excellent overall response from members of the public who brought firearms to the police to be disposed off safely."

Other prohibited weapons handed into police over the last month include 27 self-loading handguns, 21 revolvers and five single-shot pistols.

Gill Marshall-Andrews, chairperson of the Gun Control Network - founded in the aftermath of the Dunblane tragedy - said although it was alarming so many were still in circulation, it was "very good" the weapons had been taken off the streets.

But she said: "No-one ever said the handgun ban would solve the problem but would merely stem the tide and we think it has. If we had not introduced the ban, the problem could now be far worse than it is."

A total of 509 weapons were handed into police during the campaign, which began on April 1 .

Police also revealed a powerful 12-bore double-barrelled weapon had been handed in anonymously to officers at police headquarters at Fettes during the last week of the campaign.

Members of the public also handed in 43 rifles, 129 shotguns, 132 air rifles, 72 air pistols, 30 non-firing imitation guns and 25 blank firing weapons. A total of 11,775 rounds of ammunition were passed to police.

During the campaign, officers were stunned to see a powerful Bren machine gun handed into Portobello station and a tampered-with replica Uzi 9mm sub-machine gun, which someone had tried to adapt into a live weapon, surrendered.

A walking stick, with a 2ft-long stiletto sword blade hidden inside, was also handed over to officers, along with 40 other offensive weapons such as knives and coshes.

Lothian and Borders Police have undertaken a series of initiatives to tackle gun and knife crime over the past 12 months.

Last year the force’s two-month amnesty led to 961 weapons and a considerable amount of ammunition being surrendered.

[El Tejon]

So, what happens when some loon drives over kids with a car as has happened in the US?

[Marko Kloos]

Come on now, El Tejon. You know exactly what their counterparts here in the US think.

30,000 gun deaths, half of which are suicides and justifiable homicides, are decried as "unacceptable blights on a civilized society".

40,000 traffic deaths and 3 million traffic injuries per year are shrugged off as "the price of freedom".

The difference, of course, is the selective "cost only" analysis they perform on the side of gun deaths, which is of course ideologically driven intellectual dishonesty. Guns save lives, and the 2,000,000 annual defensive gun uses greatly outweigh the 30,000 deaths, only half of which are actually homicides.

They manage to realize that the freedom of personal transportation greatly outweighs the 40,000 annual traffic deaths, but they are unwilling to come to the same conclusion when it comes to icky guns.

"Cost only" analysis is a pretty dumb thing...it's like balancing your checkbook by only counting withdrawals, and disregarding deposits.

[El Tejon]

lend,:D, sort of what I was getting at. Although I have may doubts about utilitarian arguments when it comes to constitutional rights.:uhoh:

[Marko Kloos]

Oh, I completely reject the utilitarian argument, since my civil rights are not subject to their social utility. I just use this example to discredit their own argument by pointing out their own logical inconsistency.

[Boats]

http://www.nraila.org/images/Sendagun.GIF

[Mark Tyson]

You will NEVER prevent criminals from acquiring weapons.

[Geech]

Is that poster from WWII, boats?

[Standing Wolf]

Rarely does a day pass when I fail to feel grateful to our forefathers for having rebelled against the English and founded a republic.

Frankly, I think we should have let the English sink or swim on their own in World War II. I think they'd have been happier as Nazi subjects.

[Boats]

Is that poster from WWII, boats?

It's an ad that appeared in American Rifleman in June 1940 when the outcome of the Battle of Britain was very much in doubt.

[Dogsoldier]

Is that poster from WWII, boats?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's an ad that appeared in American Rifleman in June 1940 when the outcome of the Battle of Britain was very much in doubt.

Cold day in hell when I would do that now. The people of England folded, they picked the gubbermint they got, so if that ever happens again, I would not send them anything. I am thankful for the Brit's backing us in Iraq. And would support them anyway they need except for this. What would have happened if the Brit gun owners all said "NO . They would not be in the position they are in.

Same goes for the Aussies and Canadians.

[Bruce in West Oz]

What would have happened if the Brit gun owners all said "NO . They would not be in the position they are in.

Same goes for the Aussies and Canadians.

This sort of ill-informed comment drives my blood pressure to the bursting point. :fire:

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? We would have been infinitely worse off had we said "NO".

Let me give you just a quick couple of pointers about -- in my case -- Australia.

1. It is estimated that only some 20% of "prohibited" firearms were handed in to the police in Australia after the new laws were passed. Some 80% are still out there -- in cupboards, barns, buried, in garden sheds -- whatever. How come?? Because in some States of Australia prior to 1996 there was no registration of longarms. So the police have no idea who has what. There were fewer firearms handed back in total than the number of SKKs and SKSs that were imported! Let alone all the semi-auto .22s and shotguns and pump action shotties and bolt actions for people who longer could show "need or reason" for owning a firearm .... So a few hundred thousand Aussie shooters (or more) did, in fact, say "No". Those same people now face up to 14 years' prison time for keeping their 10/22 or whatever, if caught. And you can't buy ammo any more without producing a licence and a photographic FOID, or reloading components -- so they'd better have a good supply. So exactly what was the benefit gained by saying "NO"?

2. In States which had prior registration (like mine), the police already knew what you had. Those who didn't hand them in on time were called up on the computer a few at a time. No big fuss -- just a visit from the cops when you least expected it -- no warrant necessary under the Firearms Act. Lost the firearm?? Sorry, it's a (serious) offence not to have reported that when it happened. And it's an offence to lose it anyway -- "Fail to Secure" is, I think, the jargon. Stolen?? Ditto -- your fault, not the person who stole it.

3. There is no RIGHT to a firearm in Australia. Period. End of story. Whether we agree or not, the Full Bench of the High Court of Australia has ruled exactly that. Magna Carta no longer applies, nor does common law. Exactly the same as if SCOTUS was to rule that the 2nd Amendment applied to militias and not to individuals.

4. How many gun owners in the USA? 80 million? Whatever -- I can guarantee that at least 80% of those would say "Yes" and hand over their firearms. That leaves a lot of you still, I agree -- but the remainder are now a distinct minority. And all the police need to do is wait for you to get old and die. Then your buried guns are no more than iron oxide.

Look, don't get me wrong -- I'm as pro-gun as you are and as anti-registration and licensing as anyone. BUT, and it's a big but, by remaining legal, I can still enjoy shooting while fighting the system from within. I still have legal firearms in my home -- I still target shoot every weekend or so, and hunt whenever I get an invitation onto someone's property (there are no "public" hunting lands in Western Australia). Had we, collectively, said "NO", as you suggest, the result would have been a total prohibition of ALL firearms in Australia. We know this because the PM and leading political parties have admitted as much. Then I might still have had my semi-auto .22s and pump action 12g -- but there would have been nowhere I could have shot them. Just their mere possession could cost me $5000 and 14 years' inside -- plus a permanent criminal record. Goodbye job, home, future -- everything.

At least this way, I can still fight.

Bruce

[agricola]

dogsoldier,

As you seem to have missed it, those firearms were requested because the worlds most evil dictator of all time was twenty six miles away and looking to get his feet wet. It turned out that he managed to shoo him onto someone elses' lawn until we could get a big enough mob together to take him down. Its nice to know that fifty years of being a staunch ally count for so much with some.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way do you have any decent books on the start of the Second World War or what? One sees so many errors here from many posters when talking about events prior to 7/12/41 that it does seem to be an issue.

[fallingblock]

I have a very strong feeling that the Australian government is going to prohibit firearms anyway....

Maybe resistance is better than complying for a diminishing return?

I think it would have been very difficult , maybe impossible, for the Howard government to have weathered mass non-compliance made public by thousands of arrests.:scrutiny:

[hipower22]

I'm with Bruce on this one. My home state has had gun registration since long before I was born, so don't go around telling me what we should or should not have done.

And while we are on the subject of the RKBA, it appears to be under attack in your country as well.

Supreme Court Ruling Possible on Weapons

By DAVID KRAVETS
.c The Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court on Tuesday refused to reconsider
its ruling that Americans don't have the constitutional right to own
firearms, setting up the possibility of a Supreme Court ruling on the Second
Amendment.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California's assault weapons ban
in a 2-1 ruling last December. On Tuesday, a majority of the circuit's 25
active judges declined to rehear the case.

Like agricola, I get a bit crapped off by all this 'we saved you last time' rubbish. The British, and Aussies, were fighting two full years before the US came into it. Don't get me wrong, I am a friend of America (just ask fallingblock) but ill-informed comments help no-one.

[WonderNine]

56 banned firearms had been surrendered

Imagine how many are still "on the streets" :barf: :barf: :barf:


:D :D :D

[WonderNine]

a large number of banned handguns are now off the streets and not able to cause harm to any innocent people.

I was pulling an old revolver of mine off the top shelf of the closet and it nearly landed on my head. I swear it was trying to kill me!

[WonderNine]

Police also revealed a powerful 12-bore double-barrelled weapon had been handed in

:D :D :D :D :D







:rolleyes:

[WonderNine]

A walking stick, with a 2ft-long stiletto sword blade hidden inside, was also handed over to officers, along with 40 other offensive weapons such as knives and coshes.

Offensive weapons? :fire:

:cuss:

[WonderNine]

How many gun owners in the USA? 80 million? Whatever -- I can guarantee that at least 80% of those would say "Yes" and hand over their firearms.

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

That's very funny....

[Sergeant Bob]

What would have happened if the Brit gun owners all said "NO . They would not be in the position they are in. Same goes for the Aussies and Canadians.


That's so easy to say when they're not knocking at your door. We're no better than the Brits, Aussies , or Canadians. It just hasn't happened here....yet . How many Second Amendment gains have we made here lately?

[hipower22]

I think it would have been very difficult , maybe impossible, for the Howard government to have weathered mass non-compliance made public by thousands of arrests

It would not take thousands of arrests, just a few well chosen individuals to make an example of and the rest would soon fall in line. Very few people are so committed that they wish to spend time in jail - it ain't a nice place.

[Marko Kloos]

Offensive weapons?

Must have been a gold-plated Desert Eagle, or one of those "Pimp Special" Taurus guns with gold controls and fake pearl grips. :D

[WonderNine]

Or maybe a Hi-Point

[fallingblock]

I really believe that mass non-compliance of Howard's gun laws
with thousands of arrests/trials would have resulted in a government backdown.

I feel pretty confident that you do not include yourself here:

****************************************************
"It would not take thousands of arrests, just a few well chosen individuals to make an example of and the rest would soon fall in line."
****************************************************

I acknowledge that there is a different perception of 'rights' in Australia's population as a whole,
and that the feeling isn't nearly as strong (read: almost non-existent) concerning RKBA...

but have we really sunken to the point of cowering before a government no matter what they do to us?

****************************************************
"Very few people are so committed that they wish to spend time in jail - it ain't a nice place."
****************************************************

So...do we refuse to commit and live happily ever after in the resulting gulag:banghead:

That option sounds like a poor bargain to me:barf:

[Dogsoldier]

I knew that my post would probably start a firestrom. Bruce, if I offended you, please accept my apology. The point is, Aus, Canada and England have a respresentational form of government. The people can control who sits as a MP, they are not annointed by God. Have your PM's paid a heavy political toll for the gun ban? Have the people voted these clowns out? Did the people put more gun friendly MPs in office?

Probably not. We have the same problem here in the states. Only a small portion of gunowners will actually get off their rears and vote. We did have a shake up in the last election, but I do not know how that will last. The will of the people will be followed if there is a political ramification attached to it. Unfortunatly, your countrymen and thos of Canada and GB have decided to lay back and let the government do for them. There is where your problem lays. The people of Canada, GB and your country need to start agitating the political system. You say that you have no right to firearms in Australia, I would say take them. If the political will was there in your country, it would happen.

I will not relieve myself or my fellow Americans from the same criticism. We are moving towards the nanny state. It maybe slower, but it is happening. Some of us are fighting the best we can, but most, even the gun owners are not being all that active. So when and if there is a handgun ban in the USA, I will say the same thing about my countrymen as I did to you. And no, I will be one of those weirdos who will fight the confiscation in the courts until I'm broke. And then I will find other ways to defend the Constitution. God forbid it coming to that.

[Bruce in West Oz]

Bruce, if I offended you, please accept my apology.

No need for an apology, mate -- it was just that I've heard/read that same comment so many times .... I truly didn't mean to be taken personally; I just get a trifle heated over this ...

Have your PM's paid a heavy political toll for the gun ban? Have the people voted these clowns out? Did the people put more gun friendly MPs in office?

I wish! :rolleyes:

When the 1996 gun laws were rammed through (in just days), as far as I know there was not even one dissenting vote -- the Opposition joined the government willingly! (There may have been an independent or two who voted nay, but I wouldn't count on it.) Now, under the Constitution, the Feds have no control over firearms; it is purely a State matter. So, our PM simply withheld Federal funding until the States agreed to comply with his new laws/wish list. Apparently that's only blackmail when you or I do it. :fire:

Generally speaking, the "main" political parties here are:

Liberal Party (right wing) = they're the ones who brought in the new laws -- and are now banning classes of handguns based on ccalibre and barrel length.

Labor Party (left wing; yes spelling is correct) = traditionally anti-gun; their platform calles for "strict" control of firearms.

Democrats (left wingnuts) = ban on firearms being held in homes; all to be kept in armouries; progressive disarmament of civilians, military and police forces.

Greens (left wingnuts) = total prohibition on civilian firearms ownership.

So, who do we vote for??

There IS a great pro-gun politician -- John Tingle -- in office in New South Wales; but sadly he's a State pollie and not a Fed. And shooters couldn't get their act together enough to even make sure he won comfortably! (And don't forget we have compulsory voting!) We ARE our own worst enemies.

fallingblock
I really believe that mass non-compliance of Howard's gun laws
with thousands of arrests/trials would have resulted in a government backdown.

That's your opinion and I respect it. I think there would have simply been a change to the legislation (using Howard's "leverage" system) that would have resulted in no need for arrest or trial, just an automatic penalty for non-compliance -- perhaps as little as suspension of driver's licence and loss of passport without compliance up to something like they so gaily do with "bikie gangs" -- total State confiscation of all your assets (house, land, car, business, boat) until you prove you complied. Who in parliament would vote against it?

have we really sunken to the point of cowering before a government no matter what they do to us?

Not yet -- but as you well know, under our government system, parliament is supreme, and the law is the law is the law ... Out of the 200 or so gun owners I know now, if it came to the line in the sand, I can only think of half a dozen who would "man the barricades", speaking metaphorically. The rest would bitch, whinge, whine -- then shrug their shoulders, hand over their guns and go home for a beer and watch the footy on TV.

So...do we refuse to commit and live happily ever after in the resulting gulag?

For now?? I don't see an option ... yet. But things do change, all the time.

wondernine
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

That's very funny....

You think so? I hope you never have to find out. If you think all, say, people who hunt casually once a year or so, or are strictly clay target shooters, or people who shoot handguns only for target competition, or those who are gun owners but only have a "wall hanger" or a rusty old hand-me-down in a shed or cupboard are going to stand on their back feet and resist to the extent you will ... well, I'm sorry, but I think you'll be disillusioned and disappointed very quickly. We have been.

BTW, yes, knives are "offensive weapons" here, too. It is illegal to carry even a pocketknife without satisfying the requirement of "reason". That is, if you are a farmer at work with a pocketknife in a leather pouch on your belt -- no problem. If you are walking down the main street of Sydeny wearing a pocketknife in a leather pouch on your belt, the police will want to know why -- and you could (could, not would) be charged with carrying an offensive weapon.

Incidentally, "prohibited weapons" are not just firearms. Here, for example, is the list from New South Wales:

Some examples of Prohibited Weapons

(This Act does not impact on firearms)
* denotes the four additions to the Prohibited Weapons Act

Miscellaneous Weapons:

*Missile launchers: any device that is designed to propel or launch a bomb, grenade, rocket or missile by any means other than an explosive.

Bomb, grenade, rocket, missile or mine: or any similar device which expels or contains an explosive, incendiary, irritant or gas.

Flame thrower: that is of military design or any other device that is capable of projecting ignited incendiary fuel.

Crossbow: or any similar device consisting of a bow fitted transversely on a stock that has a groove or barrel designed to direct an arrow or bolt.

Sling shot a device consisting of an elasticised band secured to the forks of a Y shaped frame other than a home made sling shot for use by a child in the course of play.

Mace: or any other similar article that consists of a club or staff fitted with a flanged or spiked head, other than a ceremonial mace made for and used solely as a symbol of authority on ceremonial occasions.

Flail: or any other similar article that consists of a staff or handle that has fitted to one end, by any means, a freely swinging striking part that is armed with spikes or studded with any protruding matter.

Whip: that has a lash which is comprised wholly or partly of any form of metal.

Cat-o’-nine tails: or any other whip that consists of a handle to which there is attached any number of knotted lashes.

King fu sticks or ‘nunchaku’: or any other article consisting of two or more sticks or bars made of any material that are joined together by any means that allows the sticks or bars to swing independently of each other.

Side-handled baton: or any other article consisting of a baton, staff or rod that is made of any hard substance and has fitted to one side a handle, whether or not that handle is permanently fixed.

Knuckle-dusters: or any other similar article that is made of any hard substance and that can be fitted over the knuckles of the hand of the user to protect.

Taser Self-Defence Weapon: Any hand-held device that is designed to administer an electric shock on contact, such as the Taser Self-Defence Weapon or an electrified brief-case, but do not include any such hand-held device that may lawfully be used on an animal in accordance with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979.

*Extendable or Telescopic Baton: or any article consisting of a baton, staff or rod that is made of any hard substance and has fitted to one side a handle, whether or not that handle is permanently fixed.

*Devices designed to stun or disorient people by emitting noise and light:
(known as sound & flash grenades) any acoustic or light emitting anti-personal device that is designed to cause permanent or temporary incapacity or to otherwise disorientate persons.


Miscellaneous articles:

Body armour vests: or other similar articles designed for anti-ballistic purposes and to be worn on any part of the body (other than helmets or anti-ballistic articles used for eye or hearing protection).

Handcuffs: (other than antique handcuffs, or children’s toy handcuffs that are of an approved type).

Silencers: or any other device designed for attachment to a firearm for the purpose of muffling, reducing or stopping the noise created by firing the firearm.

Replicas, imitations, concealed blades:

Walking stick or cane: that contains a sword or any other single-edged or multi-edged blade or spike of any length or of any material.

Riding crop: that contains a knife, stiletto or any other single-edged or multi-edged blade or spike of any length or material.

Bowen Knife Belt: or any other similar article consisting of a belt or buckle that conceals or disguises within the article a knife or a single-edged or multi-edged blade or spike of any length or of any material.

Concealed knives: any article or device that:

a) due to its appearance is capable of being mistaken for something else that is not a weapon, and

b) disguises and conceals within it a single-edged or multi-edged blade or spike of any length or of any material.

Replica or imitation firearms: an imitation of any firearm which requires a licence or permit under the Firearms Act, unless approved by the Commissioner of Police.

Imitation or replica of a bomb, grenade, rocket, missile or mine: unless approved by the Commissioner of Police.


Knives:

Flick knife: (or other similar device) a blade which opens automatically by gravity or centrifugal force or by any pressure applied to a button, spring or device in or attached to the handle of the knife.

*Ballistic knife: a knife that propels a knife-like blade of any material by any means other than an explosive.

Sheath knife: a knife which has a sheath which withdraws into its handle by gravity or centrifugal force or if pressure is applied to a button, spring or device attached to or forming part of the sheath, handle or blade of the knife.

Urban Skinner push dagger: or any other device that consists of a single-edged or multi-edged blade or spike that has a handle fitted transversely to the blade or spike and allows the blade or spike to be supported by the palm of the hand so that stabbing blows or slashes can be inflicted by a punching or pushing action.

Trench knife: or any other device that consists of a single-edged or multi-edged blade or spike that is fitted with a handle made of any hard substance that can be fitted over the knuckles of the hand of the user to protect the knuckles and increase the effect of a punch or blow, or that is adapted for such use.

Butterfly knife or ‘balisong’: _or any other device that consists of a single-edged or multi-edged blade or spike that fits within two handles attached to the blade or spike by transverse pivot pins and is capable of being opened by gravity or centrifugal force.

Star knife: or any other device that consists of a number of angular points, blades or spikes disposed outwardly about a central axis point and that are designed to spin around the central axis point in flight when thrown at a target.
...

tough penalties will be imposed for the unlawful possession of prohibited weapons with a maximum penalty of:

$11,000 and up to 14 years imprisonment.

Not bad, huh?

Bruce

[fallingblock]

I was in Queensland when the 1996 laws hit, and I believe that Liz Cunningham, Independent for Gladstone, was the only dissenting vote. For all his bluster, even Bob Katter went with the Nats. Not much political spine even from our 'allies', eh?


Quote:
"That's your opinion and I respect it."
****************************************************
And I respect yours as well. You've been here in Oz fighting this sort of thing for a lot longer than I have...especially with the head start that W.A. got with draconian firearms laws. I understand the feeling of betrayal and resignation which has set in among Australian shooters...we've lost several pistol shooters from the SSAA here in Alice over this latest bit of foolishness, er, 'tough new handgun laws'.


Quote:
"I think there would have simply been a change to the legislation (using Howard's "leverage" system) that would have resulted in no need for arrest or trial, just an automatic penalty for non-compliance -- perhaps as little as suspension of driver's licence and loss of passport without compliance up to something like they so gaily do with "bikie gangs" -- total State confiscation of all your assets (house, land, car, business, boat) until you prove you complied. Who in parliament would vote against it?"
****************************************************

Perhaps. Certainly there are few politicians in the Australian system who will go out on a limb for shooters.
But, I do think that the perceived injustice resulting from a large-scale organised non-compliance by firearms owners would have shifted public opinion.
Despite the P.C. anti-gun folk's propaganda I don't think most Australians actually despise shooters or fear their presence in the community.
We needed to make our case reasonably and forcefully at the time but of course were denied access by the media and by the Howard government's rush to implement the legislation.
'Blind-sided', as it were. Leaving us the options of surrender or disobedience.


Quote:
Not yet -- but as you well know, under our government system, parliament is supreme, and the law is the law is the law ... Out of the 200 or so gun owners I know now, if it came to the line in the sand, I can only think of half a dozen who would "man the barricades", speaking metaphorically. The rest would bitch, whinge, whine -- then shrug their shoulders, hand over their guns and go home for a beer and watch the footy on TV.
****************************************************

Yes, the concept of Parliamentary supremacy is one of those crippling legacies we got from the British.

We surely would benefit from a proper Bill of Rights such as the U.S. has. As it stands, no individual 'right' exists unless Parliament sanctions it. Exactly the wrong way around for the concept of individual rights to flourish...or even exist!

I admire the half dozen or so of those gun-owning mates of yours who'd resist. You are correct that the vast majority of gun owners will just wander off and take up fishing when the final crunch comes.

The RKBA as an individual right is perhaps alien to the Australian identity...not much point in attempting massive cultural change within an unreceptive population, is there?

Maybe things here could change...but I have difficulty seeing how that could happen without more resistance from the gun-owning victims of government abuse...:(

[fallingblock]

You are correct:

"We have the same problem here in the states. Only a small portion of gunowners will actually get off their rears and vote.
We did have a shake up in the last election, but I do not know how that will last."
****************************************************
I am a U.S. citizen also and I voted for G.W.B. in the state of Florida....we squeaked by with 538 votes there and kept that anti-gun lunatic Gore out of the Whitehouse, but it was just too durn close to assume we can do it again.


"The will of the people will be followed if there is a political ramification attached to it."
****************************************************
The Australian electoral system makes it infinitely harder for a block of determined voters to make a difference.

First- voting is mandatory here...if you do not vote you are tracked down and asked why, and if you do not have a 'good' excuse, you are fined.

Second- there is a system of preferrential assignment of votes cast. When you vote, you must list the candidates (yes, even the ones you do not like) in descending order of preference. If your first choice does not win, your vote goes on to the next one on the list...with all sorts of 'deals' cut by the parties as to whom they will direct their preferences.

Third- unlike the U.S., we do not elect the executive, the party with Parliamentary majority does. So, even if a sympathetic potential leader chose to support gun ownership, for example, his party could (and likely would here) ignore him/her and choose
someone who will run with the sheep.

" Unfortunatly, your countrymen and thos of Canada and GB have decided to lay back and let the government do for them. There is where your problem lays."
****************************************************

We have the very same problem with a large segment of the U.S. population, as you know. Here in Australia, the "let the government do it for me" crowd all have to vote-I suspect a lot of that same crowd in the U.S. just stays home on election day....:uhoh:


" You say that you have no right to firearms in Australia, I would say take them. If the political will was there in your country, it would happen."
****************************************************

Well, Dogsoldier....some other Australian folks say that we have no right to firearms here; I would disagree:D

To be precise, the Australian government does not RECOGNISE
our right to keep and bear arms.

Will the gunowners of Australia ever have the strength of numbers or resolve to take back their rights?

Sadly, No...I don't think that is likely to happen:(

But U.S. firearms-owners should certainly take Australia's (and Canada's and the U.K.'s) example to heart:

Any conciliatory approach which attempts to retain firearms for 'sporting purposes' is doomed to fail. One by one, those 'sporting purposes' will be eliminated in the name of a 'safer society' or social utility until there are no more privately-owned firearms. Support the Second Amendment and make sure it's meaning is understood.
It ain't about hunting or target shooting!:)

[c_yeager]

Didnt the BATF very recently round up a bunch of legally purchased parts kits? Like several thousand all told. It doesnt seem that any of those folks made good on their "cold dead hands" promises. In the event of mass confiscation the best i would expect from the public at large would be non-cooperation or passive resistance. There wouldnt have to be thousands of arrests. Frankly i dont think you will find thousands of people WILLING to go to prison for this. Hopefully we will never have to find out.