• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Australia's Gun Problem

Belz... said:
They should more appropriately be called suppressors, I think, and they don't suppress the sound much.
Click to expand...
Much time has been devoted to such an argument on guns forums; silencer and muffler are legal terms and no one ever thought I was talking about a flash suppressor when I said the word silencer.

Belz... said:
I think opposition to them is mostly due to watching too many movies where a gun equipped with one just goes "phwik".
Click to expand...
True. But that is like a person objecting to our president because they saw someone on the internet claiming he was not a US citizen.

Ranb
 
Sceptic-PK said:
I don't disagree but the point you're making isn't particularly insightful.
Click to expand...

Allow me:



In California, if there is a legislative issue involving agriculture, the state legislature will bring in experts on the subject before they get down to the task of enacting any statute impacting farmers or agribusiness - wrt proposed gun control laws, the last person they speak to is a firearms forensics expert or a criminologist familiar w/ criminal firearms use and in fact during the run up to the first California AW law LE Forensic experts were deliberately excluded from the legislative process:

http://dmc.members.sonic.net/sentinel/usa2.html

"The memorandum admits the following circumstances surrounding the assault weapons legislation:

No specifically defined problem.

Artificial distinctions were made between semi-automatic weapons. The AK 47 was targeted but the Ruger Mini 14 was exempted. The two weapons are the same caliber, magazine capacity, size, etc. Past legislation that focused on machine guns and submachine guns was successful because it dealt with an entire class of weapons. The Roberti/Roos Act attempts to make distinctions between weapons in the same class (semi-automatic).

Too many people were adding or subtracting weapons from the legislation.

Most, if not all, of the of the principal players in crafting the legislation had absolutely no knowledge of firearms.

Most of the weapons on the list are low production or long out of production items that constitute absolutely no conceivable threat.

No data collection mechanism was built into the legislation to provide data for objective decisions concerning possible future additions or deletions.
The ongoing diversity and inconsistency of legal opinions: For example, in May 1989, Deputy Legislative Counsel Thomas Heuer opined that the Norinco 56Ms (an AK 47 variant) which Purdy used was not covered by the bill. While we were crafting the legislative language, the foundational legal logic provided was that the AK/AR "series" approach was valid. This seems to have now been cast aside."

When someone can't even accurately describe a very simple physical characteristic of a firearm that said person is basing some of their intended legislation on, that absolutely demonstrates that the politician in question doesn't have enough knowledge in the subject matter to have a reality based pov in the subject.
 
devnull said:
Tell me how?

If you think a lever action shotgun is more dangerous than a lever action centre fire, youve never touched a firearm in your life.
Click to expand...

Well, I've handled plenty and I agree that a lever-action shottie is much, much more dangerous than a lever-action rifle. (does anyone still use them outside of USA?)

Rifles are worthless at short range - you could confirm that with the ghost of Peter Blake if you like - while shotguns are both a weapon of choice and highly effective for short-range death.
 
Cainkane1 said:
Australian gun policy insures only criminals have guns.
Click to expand...

You really ought to stop with a generalisation so bad that it is not even wrong.

Are you calling my brother a criminal because he has a shotgun on a hobby farm to kill feral animals? Or most other farmers who own guns for very real and legitimate reasons (e.g., again feral cats, putting ill animals down, shooting rabbits)? Or are Armaguard security guards criminals? Or duck shooters? Or Kangaroo cullers? Or rifle club members? Or Buffalo shooters in the Northern Territory?

Incidentally, criminals tend to mostly only shoot each other in gang wars, as a mass shooting in a school or a theatre is not good for business. And as I have said before on other threads, if criminals want to take each out of the gene pool, let them go for it.

Norm
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
Well, I've handled plenty and I agree that a lever-action shottie is much, much more dangerous than a lever-action rifle. (does anyone still use them outside of USA?)

Rifles are worthless at short range.
Click to expand...
There is plenty to disagree with in both posts, depending upon your point of view. What is the range? 2 meters, 50 meters, 200 meters? While a 12 gauge shotgun of the pump or lever variety "may" be just fine out to 50 meters, I'm better off with a rifle past that. There are other variables; barrel type, shot or slug, sights; bead, peep or dot? Are you shooting a bird (something fast) or a bear (something dangerous)?

Rifles can be quick accurate and deadly at very close range, such as 5 meters. Check out a three gun competition with handgun, rifles and shotguns. At the ones I've seen handguns were typically used at 1-15 meters, shotguns 5-25 meters including flying clays and rifles 20-190 meters.

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
I get the feeling I have offended you, again. Not sure why this time. Do I need to explain what a bloop tube is or is the word itself somehow offensive to you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accurizing
Click to expand...
Offensive? No! I said it was "great". Does "great" mean something other than "great" now? I thought it was a fantastic term. I have no idea what it means, but I love the term.

Ranb said:
I use a silencer on any firearm I own which is a suitable host; rifles and handguns, no shotgun silencers yet. I use them anywhere they are legal to use; this includes hunting and target shooting. Silencers reduce noise and recoil; generally making shooting a more pleasant experience.

I made some baffles to fit into the barrel extension of my precision air rifle so it would not be as loud when I practice in my garage. Legally they aren't silencer parts, but they suppress the loud noise of the air rifle.
Click to expand...
Great, thanks for answering.

Ranb said:
I've made an effort to answer every question you've asked of me. Why can't I expect the same from you?
Click to expand...
I've no idea why you can't expect that, because I've answered everything I can to the best of my ability as well. If there's an outstanding unanswered question, please point it out to me because I must have missed it.
 
I went back and looked, the only outstanding question is one you probably can't answer. Why are silencers illegal in Australia?

Several years ago when I was trying to convince a legislator to sponsor a bill that would allow WA residents to use their registered silencers; WA being the only state that allow ownership but prohibited use by civilians and the police. Finding out that the ban went into effect in 1934 was easy, but since there was not actual written legislative intent on the bill banning use, no one could tell me why use was banned. The rumor was that it was an anti-poaching attempt.

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
There is plenty to disagree with in both posts, depending upon your point of view. What is the range? 2 meters, 50 meters, 200 meters? While a 12 gauge shotgun of the pump or lever variety "may" be just fine out to 50 meters, I'm better off with a rifle past that. There are other variables; barrel type, shot or slug, sights; bead, peep or dot? Are you shooting a bird (something fast) or a bear (something dangerous)?

Rifles can be quick accurate and deadly at very close range, such as 5 meters. Check out a three gun competition with handgun, rifles and shotguns. At the ones I've seen handguns were typically used at 1-15 meters, shotguns 5-25 meters including flying clays and rifles 20-190 meters.

Ranb
Click to expand...

Most gun murders happen at 10 feet, not 50 metres.

If we're talking about dangerous in real-world violent confrontations (which is what I was referring to) shotguns are infinitely more likely to be used and infinitely more dangerous than rifles. I will note that a fair few multiple/mass murderers have used rifles, though.
 
The Atheist said:
Most gun murders happen at 10 feet, not 50 metres.

If we're talking about dangerous in real-world violent confrontations (which is what I was referring to) shotguns are infinitely more likely to be used and infinitely more dangerous than rifles. I will note that a fair few multiple/mass murderers have used rifles, though.
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen an ar-15 fired fast at multiple 7 yards targets? Talking A-zone hits every half-second or less (the good shooters were better than that).

Pshaw on the "shotguns are infinitely more dangerous than rifles at close range". It depends on the rifle and the wielder.
 
Giz said:
Have you ever seen an ar-15 fired fast at multiple 7 yards targets? Talking A-zone hits every half-second or less (the good shooters were better than that).
Click to expand...

No, but I've fired plenty of auto and semi-autos.

Giz said:
Pshaw on the "shotguns are infinitely more dangerous than rifles at close range". It depends on the rifle and the wielder.
Click to expand...

In the hands of an experienced shooter, rifles may well be more dangerous, but any amateur can pull the trigger of a shotgun. That's why they are overwhelmingly more popular among criminals than rifles.
 
arthwollipot said:
You're right - I can't answer that. But nothing you have said makes me want to change it.
Click to expand...

Since you know they don't make guns quiet by any means, why not?

You say that you have no problem with farmers and hobby shooters, since they're strictly regulated in Oz. Why not let them shoot with a little less hearing damage?

To me it's the equivalent of banning earplugs for motorcyclists.
 
The Atheist said:
If we're talking about dangerous in real-world violent confrontations (which is what I was referring to) shotguns are infinitely more likely to be used and infinitely more dangerous than rifles. I will note that a fair few multiple/mass murderers have used rifles, though.
Click to expand...
From your link above;
As one of the robbers held a gun to the head of a crewmember, Blake sprang from the cabin wielding a rifle. He shot one of the assailants in the hand before the rifle malfunctioned; he was then fatally shot in the back by assailant Ricardo Colares Tavares....
Click to expand...
Just about any gun is going to be more useful than a rifle that will not shoot. The "infinitely" claims are hyperbole.

Ranb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom