Australia's Gun Problem
- Thread starter arthwollipot
- Start date
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
It was silenced.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Why did you make a claim without evidence?
Beady
Philosopher
Lever action shotguns? Rapid fire? I have a lever action shotgun. It's a model 1887. Damned newfangled technology.
Oh crap!
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Certain American gun-owning posters have used the "law-abiding gun owners painted as criminals" argument on this very forum.
I'm an American. I've been accused of criminal activity by people on this forum simply for engaging in discussions about legal firearms. I think most any gun owner in the world would object to being painted as a criminal especially if they are careful to obey the law where they live.
Ranb
Polaris
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,396
When a whack-job goes on a mass-shooting and gun owners who have never committed a crime in their lives are accused of having "blood on their hands" because they own a similar kind of gun as the whack-job used, what else would you call it?
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Yes, because that's exactly what's being talked about.
Law-abiding gun owners by definition abide by the law. They can't be criminals if they don't own any illegal firearms. In this case we're talking about legalising a weapon that previously wasn't legal - so no law-abiding gun owners own one. You can't be suddenly made a criminal by not allowing a gun that already wasn't allowed.
That's why the argument is invalid. A law-abiding gun owner by definition doesn't own any illegal weapons.
I thought you were discussing the Adler A110 lever action shotgun. From what I've read it is legal in Australia but some people are attempting to block import by calling a lever action shotgun semi-auto.
Unless I'm mistaken, the gun is legal and the efforts of those who would block import by calling it new technology or semi-auto are lying.
Ranb
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
How dare an organization stand up for civil rights you disagree with!
I don't care what kind of phone you have or for the software advertisement.
It's ashame that the right to bear arms exists at all. It seems to me it is the only excuse the USA has for its gun culture in this day and age. Owning a gun should not be a right, it should be a privilege. The 2nd amendment should be reammended.
Last edited:
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Oh. As far as I was aware it was not legal, and the proposal was to make it legal. I might have to re-check my sources on that. If what you say is true, then you might have more of a point.
ETA: having another look at the sources, it seems that you are correct. The issue is that this particular weapon basically exploits a loophole in the law, being a rapid-fire weapon that isn't technically considered semi-automatic. There is little functional difference between this and a semi-automatic weapon (which are illegal) other than the mechanics of its loading mechanism. I (and others) believe that the law should prohibit this weapon for the same reason that it prohibits semi-automatics - its rate of fire. This thing can put a lot of metal in the air in a very short time and has the potential to be incredibly destructive.
Gun advocates are comparing its rate of fire with that of a bolt-action rifle, but I don't think the comparison is very good. A bolt-action rifle requires four separate movements to reload (up, forward, back, down) while this requires only two (forward, back), and a bolt action rifle puts only one largeish piece of metal into the air with each squeeze of the trigger, whereas this weapon puts hundreds of smaller ones in a tight group.
Last edited:
Can you point out the loophole to me? As far as I know semi-auto and pump shotguns were restricted by the type of action. Lever action shotguns have been around for a long ass time, so they must have known about them. The last time I read Australian gun control law I didn't notice that it was in any way ambiguous.
You mean restricted?
Semi-auto, pump, bolt action and lever actions all contain a bolt. Semi-auto actions use a recoil mechanism or gas operation plus a spring to move the bolt. The others rely on the person's hand to operate the bolt; at a much slower speed. Semi-auto is fastest (by a wide margin), then pump, then lever and last is bolt by my experience.
Isn't there a less embarrassing way to keep the guns out of the country than trying to convince fellow Australians that they're idiots? Why not change the law instead of trying to suggest that lever action is like semi-auto?
This argument is naive. There are bolt action shotguns. Shotguns can use shot or slugs. They are available in smooth or rifle bores. Rifles can use shot in place of bullets; doesn't work as well as a shotgun though because even my 50 caliber rifle is going to be less effective than a 20 or 28 gauge shotgun when loaded with shot. Compared to a rifle shooting bullets, a shotgun with shotshells does not put anything in a tight group unless it is less than 5 meters away.
Ranb
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Hell, I'm a trained armorer and small arms instructor living in San Francisco.
If I was registered to vote as a republican they'd arrest me on sight and deport me to Montana.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
As far as I am aware the law restricts semi-automatic and pump, but does not restrict lever-action, despite the fact that lever-action weapons can fire about as fast as pump. Basically, the mechanism shouldn't be the factor, it should be average rate of fire. I consider that to be a flaw in Australia's gun laws.
Yeah, whatever particular terminology is required. You know what I mean.
So there is no disagreement then that semi-auto should be
Yes, there are some people trying to change the law, and that is what I would suggest too. There are parliamentarians such as Leyonjelm who actively work in the opposite direction. And in a legislative fight between me and him, he wins because he's in Parliament.
I was not aware that it was possible to fire shot from a rifle. Thanks for that. But you've already said that bolt-action weapons are the slowest, so I don't think it's relevant. Pump- and lever-action weapons have a similar rate of fire, so I think the law should treat them similarly.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I think you misread Ranb. The lever action rate of fire is actually lower than every other type except for bolt action.
Also, I don't think Ranb expressed any inclination to agree with you on the basis you suggest above. Rule of So?
I was not making any sort of judgement on what should be restricted. I like my pump, bolt and semi-auto shotguns; not going to give them up without a fight.
I have used pump shotguns and lever and pump rifles. Pump beats the lever for speed, period. In fact my Mossberg pump shotgun can be rapid fired by keeping the trigger held back and pumping fast. I can't do the same with my Winchester M94 carbine. I would say the rate of fire of the M94 in my hands is about half as fast as my pump 12 gauge even though the recoil of the shotgun is heavier.
Here is a lever gun, but it is trick shooting with a modified action from what I'm told. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IVCwYPjFXc
It is, but not very useful.
I think the lever shotgun is slower. Unless there is a real possibility that people will abuse lever guns in Australia, they should be left alone.
I'm not impressed at all with the Adler A110. It is like the California legal AR-15's with the gas system not installed making the rifle a straight pull, spring loaded bolt action. A poor solution for a political problem.
Ranb
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
There is a real possibility. The risk is such that you have to assume that there is a real possibility of any weapon being abused and implement controls appropriate to the risk. Rapid-fire weapons have a higher inherent risk than single-shot weapons.