Would you bother owning a handgun under these conditions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The whole thing sounds like a big headache. Since you can only have LRN ammo, I would probably own 4" barrel service revolver depending on whether or not the police actually show up unannounced and snoop around your home. I find that part the most troubling really. I would definitely own a shotgun too.
 
I say you should press on, the situation seems somewhat analagous to suppressors here in the states. As the relative cost of suppressor ownership has dropped, suppressors have become more and more popular. In the last couple years it seems as though suppressor owners have finally reached the critical mass necessary for some small legislative changes to start to be implemented. Specifically, several states have passed laws allowing the use of suppressors while hunting. It's not huge, but it's a start, and with the potential inclusion of hunters, the numbers of stakeholders in the suppressor conversation has grown.

While this is only tangentally related to your topic, what I'm trying to say is you can never reach the critical mass necessary to start getting things done if people allow the government to make the choice for them. If you ever want the situation to improve in your country, you should re-up your handgun license, and focus on introducing the uninitiated to your side of the gun rights discussion.
 
IMO, it is worth it if you have no other option.

If I were to live in Australia and had to deal with those regulations, I would probably look at moving to a Free Country where I could fully enjoy and pursue my hobby. That's me though.

We do have it good here in the USA , for now. If our Govt were to impose those types of regulations on us, they would have a pretty nasty fight on their hands.
 
The course I would take is not very High Road worthy so given the only two options you offered I would certainly do it. If years/generations down the road enough people get back into it and shooting they might have enough political power to overturn those bans (not sure how your political system works).
 
This was a recent petition to reclassify .22 pistols as Section 1. Section 1 firearms cover the majority of legal to own guns (with a licence). All pistols are currently Section 5, which is the prohibited category. Yes, .22 pistols lumped in the same group as machineguns, sawn-off shotguns, rocket launchers and pepperspray (LOL).

This was one of the most widely publicised (in shooting circles) petitions, but it only garnered 13,000 signatures. You need 100,000 signatures for the issue to be considered for debate in Parliament. Quite disappointing :(

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/360
 
Last edited:
When I lived in the Netherlands (where I grew up) I didn't even bother to acquire a firearm, I had no idea what the requirements were or if we even had a right/priviledge to own a firearm.

Our situation is effectively the same as Australia, the restriction we do NOT have is bans on certain semi-automatic rifles but you can practically own anything except maybe machineguns, supressors and the like.

But we are required to have a safe bolted to the wall, be a member of a shooting club for atleast a year and then you get the priviledge of owning a firearm which you have to store in a safe SEPERATE from the ammo and even IF you needed to use it to protect your self you would have to prove it was absolutely your last resort.

I am glad to be (relatively) free now in the US of A...
 
I don't know about Australia, but here in the UK, there is little public appetite for liberal gun ownership. The public are just so afraid. If you ask anyone else they will say that people shouldn't be allowed guns except for maybe shotguns and bolt action rifles for hunting. It's been a struggle not to allow any further infringements. We'll also point to America everytime there's a mass shooting and just shake our heads. It would be a long road to get our pistols back.
Around 100 years ago, before the start of the First World War, there were essentially no restrictions on firearms ownership in Britain. There was also very little crime. The first gun control laws were passed by a government afraid of anarchists and red revolutionaries, rather than criminals. But a century has seen those rights not only chipped away, but the very idea that gun ownership is suspect and no one should have them has been inculcated into the populace. And so, in just a few generations, a free people were stripped of this right, and brought to such a state where their getting it back is now virtually inconceivable in any foreseeable future.

It just goes to show that the rights can't be allowed to be stripped away in the first place.
 
I live in Australia, I joined THR because I'm enthusiastic about guns and I find THR to be a mature and civilized board.


I love guns but I think owning them here just isn't worth the hassle. Do you?

Hi and welcome to the forum.

I'd put up with it to keep what limited legal access I had, but all the while be looking for ways to get my local, state/county and national government to get rid of the current restrictions.

What if any gun rights organization do you Aussie's have over there similar to our NRA? Also is the gun control politics split among certain political parties? If so, which one/s are most friendly to law abiding citizens being allowed greater freedom of gun ownership?

`
 
Thank the gun grabbers in the UK for sending us some really nice folks who came here to be free and enjoy their guns.
 
We have an unsettling number of people like that here in the U.S. The vast majority of them are called "Democrats." ;)


.
That's just dumb right there. Plenty of NRA A+ Democrats and plenty of NRA F republicans. Look at good old Mitt. Probably the most accomplished gun banner to have ever run for President...he was a Republican!
 
I own guns for two reasons: personal/home defense and just the pure fun of it. I wish I could say I get out and shoot a lot. I don't. I belong to a club and the NRA. Last year I got out exactly twice. Now the year before that I think I went to the club 6 or 7 times. I grew up on a farm and if I still live there I know I'd shoot more often.

Regardless, shooting or not, I do get a lot a pleasure out of owning my guns, the few that I have.

I couldn't quite tell if you had to keep them locked up at your club or your home. If the answer is "the club", well I couldn't use them for home defense and I'd get a great deal less pleasure out of them.

I might not bother and get into something else. Now if I could have a bolt action rifle (I believe the Enfield rifles are very popular in Australia) then I'd probably forgo handguns and get my shooting fun from that.
 
That's just dumb right there. Plenty of NRA A+ Democrats and plenty of NRA F republicans. Look at good old Mitt. Probably the most accomplished gun banner to have ever run for President...he was a Republican!


Yeah, yeah, yeah -- you can cite individual examples of ANYTHING, but you can't deny that the VAST MAJORITY of the aggressively programmatic, institutional, and strategic assaults on the 2A have come from the Democrats (the recent Senate votes are a good bellwether, right off the bat).


.
 
That's just dumb right there. Plenty of NRA A+ Democrats and plenty of NRA F republicans. Look at good old Mitt. Probably the most accomplished gun banner to have ever run for President...he was a Republican!

A lot of A rated politicians are gonna get downgraded after the Toomey-Manchin vote
 
Look at the party of the VAST MAJORITY of those pushing, and voting for more gun control laws in the U.S., and then look in the mirror.

To the OP. YES it is worth it to go through the hassles. The fewer legal gun owners in OZ, the more the politicians will be able to say that guns are irrelevant for citizens (subjects) to own. Get to know the laws better, and keep shooting!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top