Australian Gun Laws

[novus collectus]

Yankee, Australia's gun laws are attrocious, but are nothing compared to Washington D.C.'s, but hopefully by next month that will totally change.

In D.C. you need the equivalent of a license for a shotgun or rifle and only some of those are even legal. They must be registered and you can only have the ammo for the registered gun.
No handguns whatsoever unless registered thirty years ago. Even antiques and black powder fall under some part of the ban.
The shotguns and rifles must remain locked in the home at all times, so forget about using it for home defense.

I am so glad I live fifteen miles outside of D.C.

 

[Norton]

I am so glad I live fifteen miles outside of D.C.

Funny....I'm glad I live 40 miles outside of DC and wish it were further

 

[shadow116]

I am so glad I live fifteen miles outside of D.C.

I wish I could say fifteen miles outside of Maryland

 

[BenL]

I'll be happy when 2A is upheld. This kind of sh!t keeps me up at night. Could you imagine the Orwellian future in the U.S., that is current-day Australia? Makes me cringe just thinking about it.

I can't believe that people who live out in the middle-of-no-where, Australia, gave up their rifles. What about the dingos? You don't want them to get your baby, do you?

 

[Namen]

http://shootingmessengers.blogspot.com/2008/05/whenever-you-think-that-we-have-it.html

Is this north or south Ireland or the whole island? I knew how bad australia, england and some other contries were more so recently from a thread novus posted. So much of my dreams retiring in the hills of ireland one day.

 

[novus collectus]

Is this north or south Ireland or the whole island? I knew how bad australia, england and some other contries were more so recently from a thread novus posted. So much of my dreams retiring in the hills of ireland one day.

Must be the Republic of Ireland.

http://www.cybershooters.org/law.htm#Northern Ireland - overview

 

[K-Romulus]

Yankee: can you guys still own the "straight-pull" AR's like I've seen owned by UK people?

 

[Yankee]

Yankee: can you guys still own the "straight-pull" AR's like I've seen owned by UK people?

If it's centrefire and semi-auto then forget about it - you're not allowed to own one.

My advice to everyone would be to assume that your government intends to make ALL weapons illegal. Buy every type of firearm you ever want to use and thousands of rounds of ammo for each weapon. If your guns are then made illegal, you are at least in a position to decide if you want to keep them or give them up - once the laws are introduced, it is too late.

 

[novus collectus]

If it's centrefire and semi-auto then forget about it - you're not allowed to own one.

I think he is talking about converting a semi auto to be straight pull bolt action instead.

My advice to everyone would be to assume that your government intends to make ALL weapons illegal. Buy every type of firearm you ever want to use and thousands of rounds of ammo for each weapon. If your guns are then made illegal, you are at least in a position to decide if you want to keep them or give them up - once the laws are introduced, it is too late.

We live next to the Chesapeake Bay and I hear a lot of firearms might get accidentally "lost overboard" into it.

The one good thing about MD is that registration is not mandatory (except for machine guns). Therefore we do not have to tell the state when one is lost or moved out of state. They have an idea who owns some rifles and most handguns, but without actual registration it is hard for them to confiscate them because they really don't know for sure where they are.
This is why we fight registration with a passion here, it is because we learned from UK, Canada's and Australia's situation.

 

[K-Romulus]

If it's centrefire and semi-auto then forget about it - you're not allowed to own one.

My advice to everyone would be to assume that your government intends to make ALL weapons illegal. Buy every type of firearm you ever want to use and thousands of rounds of ammo for each weapon. If your guns are then made illegal, you are at least in a position to decide if you want to keep them or give them up - once the laws are introduced, it is too late.

Like Novus said, these "straight pull" AR's are converted to have a big bolt handle sticking out the ejection port. One-shot, not semi. I'll try to find a photo to show you . . . .

 

[gamer_jim]

Yankee,

What are the crime rates in Australia? I'd like to see violent vs. non-violent crime rates for your country per 1000 people, and even per capita.

 

[Bill]

Remember everyone, when it's time to bury your guns...it's probably a good time to dig them up.

 

[Yankee]

Yankee,

What are the crime rates in Australia? I'd like to see violent vs. non-violent crime rates for your country per 1000 people, and even per capita.

Unfortunately the statistics tend to indicate that the gun laws have been somewhat successful. These laws were introduced as a reaction to one of the worst gun massacres in history and the unavoidable fact is that we have not had another mass shooting in the decade since the laws came into effect. This means that the public have seen the laws as being very effective and there is no popular support for relaxing the laws.

That doesn't mean that the laws have been overwhelmingly successful in reducing gun crime. Just looking at homicides, in the year prior to the laws Australia had 67 homicides involving guns. In the year after the laws, we had 57. While this initially looks to be a reduction, it is pefectly in line with the long time downward trend we had been seeing in the 10 years prior - ie statitistically speaking, the laws had no impact whatsoever on the trend of gun crime in Australia. It also hides the fact that while ten less people died as a result of guns, more than ten extra people were killed using other methods ie people who may have shot their ex-wives simply used another method such as a knife or blunt instrument. The problem is that gun suicides dropped from 505 in 1991 to just 261 in 2001 and therefore total deaths from firearms have fallen dramatically and that is all the public focuses on. What you need to know is that those people who would have killed themselves with a gun simply switched methods and there is actually a strong indicator that the gun laws increased the suicide rate. For example, in the five years after the gun laws, there were 427 more suicides than there would have been if the suicide rate of 1996 had been maintained.

Anyway, statistics can be twisted to fit whatever agenda you may have and there are a range of confusing factors which have led to falls in gun deaths which aren't necessarily a result of banning semi-autos. For example, stricter firearms training has reduced accidental deaths and much tighter criminal and psychological screening has meant that firearms haven't been in the hands of unstable people. These are good results but could have been acheived without banning certain types of guns and painting all sensible gun-owners as potential mass murderers.

 

[Rattlesnake46319]

Anyway, statistics can be twisted to fit whatever agenda you may have and there are a range of confusing factors which have led to falls in gun deaths which aren't necessarily a result of banning semi-autos. For example, stricter firearms training has reduced accidental deaths and much tighter criminal and psychological screening has meant that firearms haven't been in the hands of unstable people. These are good results but could have been acheived without banning certain types of guns and painting all sensible gun-owners as potential mass murderers.

You mean the same way the press can claim there have been more school shootings and spree shootings in our country since the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban elapsed in 2004?

Perception is reality, and unfortunately it seems that far too many people in this country are too lazy to look perceive things for themselves.

 

[novus collectus]

Remember everyone, when it's time to bury your guns...it's probably a good time to dig them up.

Excellent point.

 

[novus collectus]

Unfortunately the statistics tend to indicate that the gun laws have been somewhat successful. ....

This is why I cringe whenever fellow gun rights advocates argue with an anti and bring up how Australia's violent crime went up after y'all's bans and buybacks. From what I read it didn't rise, or if it did it didn't rise much in the years following.

That doesn't mean that the laws have been overwhelmingly successful in reducing gun crime. Just looking at homicides, in the year prior to the laws Australia had 67 homicides involving guns. In the year after the laws, we had 57. While this initially looks to be a reduction, it is pefectly in line with the long time downward trend we had been seeing in the 10 years prior - ie statitistically speaking, the laws had no impact whatsoever on the trend of gun crime in Australia. It also hides the fact that while ten less people died as a result of guns, more than ten extra people were killed using other methods ie people who may have shot their ex-wives simply used another method such as a knife or blunt instrument. The problem is that gun suicides dropped from 505 in 1991 to just 261 in 2001 and therefore total deaths from firearms have fallen dramatically and that is all the public focuses on. What you need to know is that those people who would have killed themselves with a gun simply switched methods and there is actually a strong indicator that the gun laws increased the suicide rate. For example, in the five years after the gun laws, there were 427 more suicides than there would have been if the suicide rate of 1996 had been maintained.

Anyway, statistics can be twisted to fit whatever agenda you may have and there are a range of confusing factors which have led to falls in gun deaths which aren't necessarily a result of banning semi-autos. For example, stricter firearms training has reduced accidental deaths and much tighter criminal and psychological screening has meant that firearms haven't been in the hands of unstable people. These are good results but could have been acheived without banning certain types of guns and painting all sensible gun-owners as potential mass murderers.

Yeah, statistics can be twisted alright, which is what the Austrailian gun control lobby seemed to have learned from other countries very well. They used the same tactics they used in the UK and the US, but the reason why their tactics are not working here so much anymore is because of the opposite of what happened in AU.
See, whenever the antis bring up the more guns means more crime, we point out that since 1994 we have had another 75 million guns and crime is about half what it was then.
Whenever they bring up accidental gun deaths and try to correlate more gun ownership with more accidental gun deaths of adults and children, we point out that since 1994 even though millions of more households have guns in them now the accidental gun deaths is half the total number since 1994, and the number of accidental gun related deaths of children is less than half and less than a third the annual number of the 80s. Now this is not the rate per 100,000, this is the actual number of deaths. The rate is an even smaller fraction of what it used to be. (gun related suicides and homicides are fewer now in the US than in 1994 too)

There is a reason the antis are not using government statistics as much in America nowadays, it is because it disproves their assertations so soundly they have to change the subject. Also with the internet people can look up the the truth for themselves and so the decieving of the public becomes much harder for them.
So what do they do? The antis here adopted a method of making up their own hard to find statistics and commisioning very partisan and biased studies from anti gun scientists associated with places with impressive reputations like Harvard, or Johns Hopkins university. They then promote the tailored conclusions everywhere they can and hope the media and the public takes the bait. This too worked for a while but with the internet providing a quick rebuttal this as well is starting to backfire on the antis here and abroad.

Oh, about the suicides using a gun, I always point out two things. I point out how more people die by suicide in gun free Japan than all gun related deaths in America combined. I then point out the UK. The UK has very few gun suicides and no handguns, but yet their suicide rate overall is the same as the suicide rate in "gun ravaged" US.
The gun/suicide correlation is one of the easier to disprove or dismiss, and by doing so it helps to expose the anti's famously dishonest tactic of sensationalism. Their use of "gun suicides" alone and how they have gone down when they discuss how gun control worked looks silly when it is pointed out that the number of suicides in Canada has pretty much remained the same before and after gun registration and tighter controls, and in the UK before and after their bans.

 

[novus collectus]

Just found this and this is interesting:

The latest Australian Crime: Facts and Figures 2006 from the AIC states that the percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continues a declining trend which began in 1969: ‘In 2003, fewer than 16 per cent of homicides involved firearms. The figure was similar in 2002 and 2001, down from a high of 44 per cent in 1968.’ The Homicide in Australia: 2005–2006 National Homicide Monitoring Program (NHMP) annual report points out that while the use of firearms to commit homicide had decreased over time, the use of handguns as a percentage of all firearm homicide has increased. In 1992–93, 17 per cent of firearm homicides were committed with a handgun, compared with 47 per cent in 2005–06.

So inspite of increased and extreme handgun restrictions, the number of handgun murders of firearms murders has gone up.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/bn/2007-08/08bn01.htm

But of course this is a fluctuating number because the year before it was less:

In 2004-05, there were 40 firearm homicides (15%); 16 involved handguns.

http://www.aic.gov.au/stats/crime/keyFacts_handguns.html

I also found this very interesting, only three stolen handguns were used in a crime or suicide that they know of in 2007 and only an incredibly small number of crimes committed with a firearm were committed by licensed gun owners, or gun owners using a gun registered to them:

Based on available information, handguns stolen in three incidents in 2004-05 were later used in a murder, a suicide and an armed robbery.

Another consistent finding over the years is that the majority of firearms used in homicide were not registered, and the offenders who used them were not licensed. During the current year, 13 per cent of offenders who used a firearm were licensed to own the firearm and 10 per cent of the firearms used were registered to the offender. Earlier research found that in 1997–98 and 1998–99, nine per cent of offenders were licensed to own the firearm and nine per cent of the firearms used were registered to the offender.

Ownership/use by a sample of police detainees

* Five % indicated they owned/possessed a handgun in the past 12 months.
* Of those who owned a handgun, 6 percent were licensed, and 8 percent were registered.
* 30 percent said they had used/threatened to use a handgun in a crime.

Of criminals sampled, less than 0.5% were registrered or licensed gun owners, but 5% of the criminals owned a handgun and nearly a third had used one in a crime before.

Just like in America, legal gun owners in Australia are extremely law abiding....and just like in Australia the criminals will still have and use firearms regardless of the laws.

 

[DemoDave]

I just set up an office in Perth. I just shipped 4 Ford pickup trucks over there. For some reason you can't get them over there.

 

[DD214]

I just set up an office in Perth. I just shipped 4 Ford pickup trucks over there. For some reason you can't get them over there.

Dang dude, an office in Australia, frequent international travel, etc. I need to work for you. I know how to launch high-speed, pointy explosive devices from aircraft if that helps.

 

[Auckland]

IWe live next to the Chesapeake Bay and I hear a lot of firearms might get accidentally "lost overboard" into it.

The one good thing about MD is that registration is not mandatory (except for machine guns). Therefore we do not have to tell the state when one is lost or moved out of state. They have an idea who owns some rifles and most handguns, but without actual registration it is hard for them to confiscate them because they really don't know for sure where they are.

I thought all handguns were registered? Atleast the ones bought here(MD)?