|
Ok I'll post a few comments and ruffle a few feathers, this is still an issue that I have strong opinions on.
First when the great gun buyback occurred I had to hand in 3 firearms (I think that's almost the first time the correct word has been used in this thread so far) or be declared a criminal, firearms which were declared not suitable to be in my possession by the government. They were totally able to make this decision without knowing anything about me, my background, my level of common sense or intelligence, or emotional stability or whether or not I have impulse control issues or a drug or alcohol problem or anger management issues or my level of experience in handling firearms or my training in firearms safety, etc, etc.
At that time I had the choice of marching myself and some of my valued possessions, for which I had worked hard and saved long (think how much you have spent in terms of time and money with regards you scopes) along to a designated "buyback" location, to hand them over to strangers knowing that they would be destroyed. If I had gone about my day to day life as usual I would have become a criminal on a specified date due to an act of legislation.
I'll say that again ... I would have been declared a serious criminal and faced a possible mandatory jail sentence because I had done NOTHING AT ALL but live my day to day life in exactly the same way I had all my life!
Let's put this in terms that perhaps more people might be able to identify with - WAY more people get killed as a result of motor vehicles than by firearms, so let's say the government decides to severely restrict motor vehicle ownership.
Implications??
Motorbikes are banned, outright, unless you earn a living by being a stunt rider, etc - but you can only ride it in the circus big top or at specific shows. You can keep your cars, no problem ...... oh, unless it has 8 cylinders because that's way too powerful, or 6 cylinders for that matter. And if it can carry more than 4 people it's also now illegal, that's too large a capacity, and surely only certified buses and trains need to do that! Either buy a 2nd car to carry 5 people (yourself, spouse and 3 kids) or someone has to stay at home. Four wheel drives are also banned so forget trips to Fraser Island or heading bush, etc. Oh yeah, you will have to carry and show your license to buy parts, have repairs done, even to get petrol, and the details on it will be recorded in an oficial register. If the central agency decides you have been buying to much petrol expect a visit by the boys in blue, or the tactical response group maybe at 4am some dark morning.
You also can't have any engine combination in any vehicle that might possibly push it faster than 70 km/h, after all no one ever needs to go more than 70 in a city. So if you still own a 4 cylinder that goes faster than 70k and you live in any city or decent sized town you will have to have one or more cylinders permanently welded up, etc, to limit it's speed and therefore limit it's potential to kill. Thats will have to be verified by a police certified engineer too. You can collect cars and bikes, etc, thats ok if you only want to look and touch, but the engines have to be permanently and irrevocably disabled so forget ever driving any of those Ferrari's or Porsche's or Vipers or GT Falcons, etc - great collection that, where not one single item in it can EVER perform it's one intended function ever again.
Likewise any speedboats, fishing boats, power cruisers, jetskis, etc ... all outlawed. You can have a tinny up to 15 feet length with no more than a 10 horse outboard on it. Any sailboat thats too big or too fast is gone too, forget the Sydney to Hobart race, etc.
If you live in a country area you can have a bigger faster car or a 4WD as long as you can show that you need it for getting around your large farm. You are still limited but in soem cases you may still manage to own a reasonable vehicle. And if you DON'T hand in newly outlawed car or motorbike you will face hefty fines or jail, and be labelled a criminal, which could affect your chances of employment, getting a loan from some financial institutions, your family may be affected by your new found social status, etc, etc.
No this is not nonsense, this is in fact a very good analogy of what happened during the firearm legislation changes brought about by Martin Bryant and the Port Arthur tragedy.
I have been shooting targets, and hunting in various forms, for many many years, before that I had an air rifle I used to shoot in our very large back yard, at targets propped inside a large concrete and rock bbq, which was backed by the rear end of a large double garage (mind you no pellet ever strayed past the confines of the bbq. There has never been an "accidantal" discharge on any trip I have been on, no one has ever been hurt, no "collateral damage" such as farmers livestock or pets or unintended animals or birds or other wildlife has ever occurred.
I was trained in how to SAFELY handle firearms before I was ever allowed to even touch my brothers air rifle, let alone use it. I have always been picky about who I do and do not go hunting with. I abhor people who are careless or casual or dangerous anywhere near any kind of potentially dangerous implement, be it a firearm or a spiked club or a kitchen knife, they all kill quite well.
What we have now if a lot of law abiding people who have not only had to relinquish personal possessions but also spend additional money to have gun safes installed in their homes, etc, in case SOME ONE ELSE (ie a REAL criminal) breaks in and could potentially steal their firearms. These same law abiding firearm owners must now also submit to police entering their premises for mandatory checks of any firearms they may still be allowed to own, how and where they are stored, etc. The threat of heavy fines, etc, still exists should it be decided that your particular storage cabinet / safe is not solid or heavy enough as well as immediate confiscation of any such property.
How many people reading would feel concerned by the idea of police having the right to enter and inspect your premises, and unlike criminals you do not even have the "protection" of simple civil rights whereby the police first need to show "reasonable cause" to obtain a warrant to search your home.
Was a change in legislation needed - absolutely, yes!
Was it done in a way that would inhibit criminal activities, or detect mentally unstable and imbalanced individuals, or better protect the public??
Not at all.
When the legislation changed how many ACTUAL criminals lined up, filled out the forms, registered themselves, obtained a firearms license???
None at all, of course!
How many of them handed in rifles or shotguns or pistols or crossbows or paintball guns or slingshots or throwing knives or blowpipes or air rifles?? (ALL of these are now "projectile weapons" under the limits if the firearm legislation)
None at all.
Did the data compiled nationwide 2-3 years after the stricter legislation was introduced show any reduction in firearm related crimes such as armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, or even murder?
None at all.
|