View Single Post
  #35  
Old 01-29-2014, 05:01 PM
StainlessSteelCynic's Avatar
StainlessSteelCynic StainlessSteelCynic is offline
Registered Registrant
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother in Arms View Post
Wow maybe you should start an OT restriction of firearms ownership thread? Reading all that almost made me throw up. So sad to see what they did to the citizens in the UK,AU,NZ
An interesting observation (although what it actually means in regards to those societies, who knows...) is that the larger the population, the more restrictive firearms ownership has become.
New Zealand firearms laws aren't as restricted as those in Australia while Australian firearms laws aren't as bad as the positively draconian laws put in place in the UK.

New Zealand
In New Zealand, the policy seems to be more about checking the fitness of the applicant to own firearms rather than to control types of firearm. So for example, you can still legally own AR15 type semi-auto rifles and can buy 30-rd mags for them as long as you can prove that you are mentally, emotionally and physically fit to qualify for a licence.
(I seriously considered immigrating to NZ but the job prospects weren't good at the time.)

Australia
In Australia, the policy is a rather more emotional response to firearms such that any and all semi-auto rifles (of any calibre) are restricted including .22LR rifles such as the Ruger 10/22 and the general public cannot own semi-auto or pump-action shotguns. Handguns are restricted to calibres of .380 or 9mm or less and magazines for pistols are restricted to 10-rds or less. It is possible to get calibres up to .45 inch (notice that it's based on size of the calibre and not power) if you are a member of an approved category of competition pistol shooting.

I say emotional response because of a number of things but mostly they are as follows: -
The pistol calibre restrictions based on size rather than power is a real quick and easy (and totally arbitrary to the point of mindless) way to control handguns. It takes no consideration of such things as the .44 Magnum round is more powerful than the .45 Long Colt round.
After a police commissioner was murdered in New South Wales with a 10/22 rifle by a criminal gang sometime in the 1990s, there was concerted effort by the police of that state to prevent further sales of semi-auto .22LR rifles to the general public because the rifle was apparently legally owned by one of the gang members.
The restrictions on shotguns make no sense to any intelligent being that displays even a minor amount of rational thought. A civilian cannot licence any semi-auto or pump-action shotgun but there are no restrictions on licencing a bolt-action or lever-action shotgun. The sad reality of this, is that pump-actions were included because they were "felt" to be more threatening, more damaging and just generally more "violent" than other types of shotgun.

When the federal government gathered together it's panel of advisors for gun control, the "experts"** gave them such "truths" as the following: -
(I'm paraphrasing here because I no longer have my copy of the Green Paper, the document outlining the government's response to gun control);
1. Semi-auto rifles are to be restricted because a bullet fired from a semi-auto is more dangerous than a bullet fired from a bolt-action. I know what they were trying to express (that a semi-auto can fire more often than a bolt-action) but if they couldn't express the idea properly I am left to think that they actually had no idea of what they were talking about.
2. Pump-action shotguns need to be restricted because they are more aggressive than a "genuine" sporting shooter needs, everybody's seen how dangerous they are in movies and they are obviously not something a hunter or sporting shooter needs... yes my jaw hit the floor after reading that claim.

** I simply cannot put into text how much disdain I feel towards those people, the panel seemed to be made up mostly of people who were terrified of guns and of anyone who owned a gun. It was by no means a balanced panel and the feelings of many gun owners at the time was that gun control was done for political purposes rather than any true concerns for public safety. Some of us still harbour lingering feelings that it was a political stunt.

United Kingdom
When the 2012 Olympic pistol shooting teams couldn't legally train in their own country... As I understand it, any self-loading or pump-action rifle with a calibre above .22LR and the vast majority of handguns are prohibited from civilian ownership.
Reply With Quote