Question for Australian Members


PDA






Mark Tyson
July 4, 2003, 10:07 PM
I'm reading up on the gun control debate in Australia at the moment, and I read that the recent prohibitions came in the wake of the Port Arthur massacre. In this killing spree supposedly 35 people lost their lives. This death toll is incredible to me, and if I'm not mistaken, it would dwarf any similar U.S. massacre.

Is this accurate? How could the man kill thirty five people at one time? Did they just wait to be slaughtered? Someone please enlighten me.

If you enjoyed reading about "Question for Australian Members" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Lock Down
July 5, 2003, 08:35 AM
The current Gun Debacle in Australia concerns the compulsory buy back of all HandGun Semi Autos that have a barrel length less than 120mm, Revolvers that are shorter than 100mm, Magazines that exceed 10 rounds and Calibres that exceed .38. This appears to be caused by an incident that occured 12mths ago at a Educational Establishment in Victoria.

The Buyback is in Chaos at present with several states not beginning until October because they haven't passed the Legislation, other states thinking they can get away with it from the 1st July, Basically no one knows what the final outcome is going to be, especially people that happen to own Glocks. The talk is that they will allow replacement barrels to circumvent the 120mm length issue but this is still to be discussed.

Given that this exercise is likely to cost the Aust Taxpayer approx $10m + and everybody agrees that the licenced Firearm owners are not the ones causing the trouble with Armed Robs, Murders, etc it makes you wonder how J Howard has managed to sell this to the Australian Public. :confused:

www.ssaa.org.au has more info that you might find interesting.

SDC
July 5, 2003, 08:55 AM
Lock Down, if your political system is anything like the Canadian system, he doesnt HAVE to "sell it" to the public; all he has to do is tell MPs "vote the way I tell you, or you're gone", and they do. By the time the next election rolls around, he'll have handed out a bunch of patronage plums and given the sheeple something else to think about. :barf:

fallingblock
July 5, 2003, 09:08 AM
That shooting was perpetrated by a simpleton who chose a popular restaurant at a Tasmanian National Park. His primary weapon was an
AR-15 stolen the morning of the shooting from a couple known to the shooter...he killed them before going on the rampage at the 'Broad Arrow Cafe' at the national park. Most of the victims were in the restaurant and were shot at very close range, there was apparently only one exit functioning on the day of the incident. There were a few more victims shot along the 'retreat' the killer made back to the murdered couple's house, which is where he was captured.

This is the 'Port Arthur Massacre" which John Howard used to implement the ban on all semi-auto long arms (yes, including .22 rimfire) as well as all pump-action shotguns. There was massive media outpouring of grief as well as a total hatchet job on the lawful firearms owners of Australia:fire:
The records of the trial and evidence presented in this case are sealed for fifty years. Heresay reports suggest serious blunders by the Tasmanian Police in regards to both their prior treatment of the shooter (no licence) and their response at the scene of the shooting (no show). The rifle used is believed to have been surrendered in a Victorian "buyback" of semi-auto rifles earlier and traded by the Victorian Police for equipment from a Tasmanian dealer.

The current "buyback" involves only handguns, as Lock Down explained.
This stems from the killing of two Chinese students at Monash University in November of '02 by a Chinese student who was a licenced handgun owner-although there are many questions the Victorian Police decline to answer concerning the licencing of this student.
Once again, this "massacre" was used as justification by John Howard to make illegal and seize up to 80,000 handguns from licenced sporting shooters. No change for 'occupational shooters such as police and security guards. It should be added that the shooting at Monash was the ONLY incident of a registered handgun being used by a licenced owner to commit murder in Victoria since the Federation of Australia in 1901:banghead:

Lock Down
July 6, 2003, 07:20 AM
SDC, you're probably right, maybe Australia needs a Federal Opposition Party that is interested in Standing up for Common sense rather than just letting the Government run amok in any direction it chooses. I was under the impression that that is what the Opposition Parties were there for. Probably can't do that, and scrap internally about who's going to be the big cheese.

P.S. Its a shame that one of the Current Affairs Programmes over here doesn't run a special on how the difference of 6mm between barrel lengths is going to cure all Australia's Violent Crime. Perhaps the DisHonourable J Howard might like to be Guest Interviewee ?

fallingblock
July 6, 2003, 07:30 AM
A.B.C. Compere: "P.M. Howard, you claim that this latest "buyback" will make Australia safer...could you explain how that will occur?"

P.M. Howard: "Yes, you see, I HATE guns, and I don't want to see Australia go down the American path."

A.B.C. Compere: "Yes, that's a very valid point."

The problem in Australia is that the vast majority of the media agrees with John Howard..."Guns are ba-a-a-d".:rolleyes:

BTR
July 6, 2003, 08:43 AM
Is self-defense an allowable reason to own guns in Australia?

daniel (australia)
July 6, 2003, 10:27 AM
No, self defence is expressly not an acceptable reason to own a firearm here. If you're wealthy and powerful enough though, you can have armed bodyguards, and they can carry on your behalf.:cuss: :fire: :cuss: :fire:

fallingblock
July 6, 2003, 09:54 PM
If you so much as mention 'self defense' on your application for a shooter's licence, the police are required to reject the application:eek:

There are special 'defence' carry licences for those whose work requires them to carry large sums of cash, or in some states, those who are specially favoured by the police.

No 'ordinary' Australian citizen/subject is able to 'justify' a firearm for self defence. :fire:

Bruce in West Oz
July 7, 2003, 10:36 AM
Here in Western Australia, for the peasants, there are really only two reasons for which the coppers will "allow" you a licence:

1. "Destruction of vermin" or "hunting" are the phrases -- MUST be accompanied by letter(s) of permission from landowner(s). Calibre will be granted on size of properties to shoot on; e.g. 200 acres might get you a .22 rimfire; 500 acres might get you a .223; 1500 acres might get you a .243 and so on. I know of one case where an applicant for a .303 supplied letters for 250 000 acres -- and was knocked back by the local cops because that "wasn't enough land".

2. Club-supported target shooting. Your licence is annotated for target shooting on an approved range only. NO HUNTING ALLOWED. Requires a Club "support" letter or form and an ongoing commitment to shoot competitively (about 6 - 8 times a year). Don't shoot = lose your licence (and, of course, all your guns -- with no compensation).

No CCW.
No ownership for "self-defence".
No handgun hunting.

There's a heap more, but I'm not going to bore you unless asked.

If you enjoyed reading about "Question for Australian Members" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!