Aussies look to ban lever action rifles and shotguns - Polidicks

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;48073108]America could try gun control on some level but honestly you won't And when it comes to "well what we do?" I've now stood that I reckon if america modernises and upgrades and provides free mental health cover to all citizens you'd see a drop in massacres I mean it's obvious you lot won't ever ditch the 2nd Amendment so just go with mental health instead[/QUOTE] We cant ditch the 2nd amendment because its the most protection we have vs our government. free mental health cover=good mental health cover. It already can take years to find a half decent person in mental health to help out a single individual. I cannot imagine the quality drop if it was blanketed free for everyone. Country is way too big for anything like free mental health care. Who would even supply it?

[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;48073096]You dont need to piss off anyone breaking into your house with a gun. You just need a place you live in. You pretty much just said you would probably let him do whatever. I guess thats where we differ, I dont know why I would ever want some fuck with a gun do anything to me, id rather shoot him somewhere, wound him and HE can go the hospital and live his life again in jail.[/QUOTE] I still don't see the good in me running to a vault, getting a weapon, loading it and shooting them In the space of that time, they'd already of gotten me. My house is single storied so honestly there's not much leeway Besides police service here is good, these guys would be arrested in the space of 72 hours

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;48073053]I know since we've had 0 massacres since the gun ban in 1996[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Hectorville_siege[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairns_child_killings[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting[/url] What is your definition of a massacre?

banning guns in america would be a fool's errand, even if it did pass. we literally have more guns in our country than you have people in yours, with it being nearly one gun to every us citizen. not even from a second amendment standpoint but from a logistical standpoint it is ludicrous to suggest a gun ban would be effective in our country. and collecting the guns would probably end up with more people dead than banning guns would save

Australia is big (geographically) to and we provide free mental health cover I'm really thankful for it since it's helping me out a lot RN [editline]29th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=deadoon;48073146][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Hectorville_siege[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairns_child_killings[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting[/url] What is your definition of a massacre?[/QUOTE] !!!!!!!! Cairns was a knife attack, not a gun attack therefore has no place in this thread whatsoever !!! Massacres to me are 5+ people, since most of the time under 5 is branded by the media and government as a "shoot out" or "mentally unstable person get hold of a weapon and had some fun"

it isn't geography that matters, geographic size means nothing to mental healthcare. the us has about 319 million people, more than 10 times that that lives in australia. the population means far more than geographic size does

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48073087]so your method of self defense is pretty much roll over and die? i mean, this doesn't even need to have guns be a part of it, if someone threatened your life you'd just let them kill you?[/QUOTE] Having someone break into your house with a gun is such an astronomically unlikely event that arming even more people with guns for "self-defence" would just make things worse. Australia isn't some violent hellhole filled with gun crime. There's little to no reason to own a gun for self defence here.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;48073152]Australia is big (geographically) to and we provide free mental health cover I'm really thankful for it since it's helping me out a lot RN [editline]29th June 2015[/editline] !!!!!!!! Cairns was a knife attack, not a gun attack therefore has no place in this thread whatsoever !!! Massacres to me are 5+ people, since most of the time under 5 is branded by the media and government as a "shoot out" or "mentally unstable person get hold of a weapon and had some fun"[/QUOTE] You said 0 massacres occurred since 1996.

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;48073178]Having someone break into your house with a gun is such an astronomically unlikely event that arming even more people with guns for "self-defence" would just make things worse by putting more guns out there. Australia isn't some violent hellhole filled with gun crime. There's little to no reason to own a gun for self defence here.[/QUOTE] i had specifically meant to leave guns out of it and target the idea that if someone broke into your house and threatened your life, he would let them do what they wanted. a bat can be used for self defense, and a knife can be used as a weapon in a home invasion

Tbh my town is shit but if someone broke into my house while I'm here they'd be armed with either a knife, cricket bat, baseball bat or cigarette

i don't even like the idea of using a gun for self defense, 90% of my advocacy comes from a sport and hobby shooting angle

My go to weapon is detaching my Bluetooth speaker box, throwing it at them then grabbing my brothers really well crafted cricket bat

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;48073085]Do I have to remind you that this thread is about an Australian issue that doesn't concern Americans?[/QUOTE] i know i was just explaining how i don't understand your desire to fuck over farmers.

You can see how well I'd go in that situation I'd probably snap chat it too why not [editline]29th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=confinedUser;48073204]i know i was just explaining how i don't understand your desire to fuck over farmers.[/QUOTE] You repeated this quote twice, you want my opinion on fucking over farmers? I don't like it, and I don't think this will get anywhere without a revolt from the farming industry

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;48073206]You can see how well I'd go in that situation I'd probably snap chat it too why not [editline]29th June 2015[/editline] You repeated this quote twice, you want my opinion on fucking over farmers? I don't like it, and I don't think this will get anywhere without a revolt from the farming industry[/QUOTE] i did? well shit my bad i thought i only quoted it once

[QUOTE=ColdAsRice;48071933][IMG] http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/attachments/other-long-arms/49493d1362064712-i-wonder-what-74759_134230440082122_352921193_n.jpg[/img] UH OH, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY FIRING 9 BARRELS IN LESS THAN A SECOND[/QUOTE] Oh I just realized something about this, a farmer with a class A license can't even buy that if it was made after 1901, that would make it a class B weapon.

Fruxodaily you should go to a shooting range and shoot some guns.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;48073206]You can see how well I'd go in that situation I'd probably snap chat it too why not [editline]29th June 2015[/editline] You repeated this quote twice, you want my opinion on fucking over farmers? I don't like it, and I don't think this will get anywhere without a revolt from the farming industry[/QUOTE] If they're being changed to a Category C firearm, wouldn't farmers still have access to them with a permit or am I misunderstanding what "primary producers" means.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;48073108]America could try gun control on some level but honestly you won't And when it comes to "well what we do?" I've now stood that I reckon if america modernises and upgrades and provides free mental health cover to all citizens you'd see a drop in massacres I mean it's obvious you lot won't ever ditch the 2nd Amendment so just go with mental health instead [editline]29th June 2015[/editline] I can never see myself using or owning a gun for self defence reasons, and honestly if someone came into my house with a gun id try my best to run or find a vulnerability in the person and go that way I don't know why you all think I want to shoot someone? I have nightmares over this bullshit[/QUOTE] its there so that when the government oversteps their boundaries why do you think we have states each state has it's own military like group to keep checks and balances between federal and state government.

[QUOTE=HoodedSniper;48073248]Fruxodaily you should go to a shooting range and shoot some guns.[/QUOTE] Doubt that will change his (or anybody elses) opinion, just saying. Shooting guns at a range is a controlled environment where there are measures in place to ensure that nobody gets hurt due to misused or malice for the most part. Personal ownership of firearms for "home defence" is massively incomparable. I'd like to visit one of the ranges somewhere near me at some point and try a variety of shooters out. But that doesn't mean I think people should have the fucking things around their houses or on their person in public spaces. [editline]28th June 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=confinedUser;48073288]its there so that when the government oversteps their boundaries why do you think we have states each state has it's own military like group to keep checks and balances between federal and state government.[/QUOTE] lmao good fucking luck revolting with your firearms against the most funded and one of the largest militaries in the world. "oh but the soldiers wont shoot back!!!", bullshit, they might not all fight back, but all it takes is for the revolt to be classified as a terrorist threat and I'm sure more than a few would help. I'm sure your civilian AR-15 can take a tank.

[QUOTE=ColdAsRice;48071933][IMG] http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/attachments/other-long-arms/49493d1362064712-i-wonder-what-74759_134230440082122_352921193_n.jpg[/img] UH OH, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY FIRING 9 BARRELS IN LESS THAN A SECOND[/QUOTE] Needs a loudner and the attachment to shoot down police helicopters.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;48073338]Doubt that will change his (or anybody elses) opinion, just saying. Shooting guns at a range is a controlled environment where there are measures in place to ensure that nobody gets hurt due to misused or malice for the most part. Personal ownership of firearms for "home defence" is massively incomparable. I'd like to visit one of the ranges somewhere near me at some point and try a variety of shooters out. But that doesn't mean I think people should have the fucking things around their houses or on their person in public spaces. [editline]28th June 2015[/editline] lmao good fucking luck revolting with your firearms against the most funded and one of the largest militaries in the world. "oh but the soldiers wont shoot back!!!", bullshit, they might not all fight back, but all it takes is for the revolt to be classified as a terrorist threat and I'm sure more than a few would help. I'm sure your civilian AR-15 can take a tank.[/QUOTE] your funny because that's exactly why our states exist in the first place. i think you skipped the fact each state has its own military

[QUOTE=confinedUser;48073378]your funny because that's exactly why our states exist in the first place. i think you skipped the fact each state has its own military[/QUOTE] The US exists because at the time, revolting was actually possible. Everyone would have access to roughly the same shit. But I don't see many civilians with access to battle ready tanks, various jets, massively intricate and encompassing strategic networks, balls to the walls insane logistical planning, etc. Sure each state might have a military, but unless they all form together like Voltron to make the entire US military (this I have no idea of or real care to research), then they still have the entire US military to try and fight off. It wouldn't go down to well. The 2nd amendment isn't all that relevant today. Back when the government was young (well, it's still young for a government, but you get what I mean) the amendment made sense as nobody was entirely sure of government after we left. But today? The US is pretty vital to the global environment, I don't think any elected representatives would want to risk your place as "basically on top" by doing something stupid enough to cause a full revolution.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;48073338] [editline]28th June 2015[/editline] lmao good fucking luck revolting with your firearms against the most funded and one of the largest militaries in the world. "oh but the soldiers wont shoot back!!!", bullshit, they might not all fight back, but all it takes is for the revolt to be classified as a terrorist threat and I'm sure more than a few would help. I'm sure your civilian AR-15 can take a tank.[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone in the US seriously thinks they could take on the US military head on, except for some fringe extremist groups. If a modern Civil War would ever break out it would be fought in a guerrilla fashion. The only reason why people even say that the second amendment is in place to allow the population to revolt against its government is because that was the initial intent of it, even if the concept is ridiculously unlikely in modern times and a revolt would most likely be quashed extremely quickly. That said, I am still glad the amendment is there because otherwise I wouldn't be able to purchase any firearms, and I would rather have the option to purchase rather than not. As others said, ex post facto style laws that criminalize the actions of those that already own something that is perfectly legal despite the fact that most owners of that thing (in this case lever action rifles and shotguns) have shown no ill intent as to how they use those things seems slightly tyrannical to me.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;48072003]Yes because rifles and shotguns can only be made with a lever-action system, and farmers only use lever-action guns.[/QUOTE] Farmers that are hunting fast moving animals, such as rabbits, feral dogs, ferals cats, and foxes are better off having a semi-automatic, pump action, or lever action weapon. It makes it easier to do follow up shots in order to ensure that you take down as many pest animals as possible to clear them out. Australia at the moment has a very, very large issue with feral dog packs that roam and slaughter livestock animals like sheep, emus, and otherwise. Same thing with foxes and feral cats. It's estimated that feral dogs alone cost Australian farmers about one hundred to one hundred and twenty five million dollars annually by destruction of property and live stock. This doesn't even start to include the cost of the European rabbit and hare populations which damage crops, spread diseases, and destroy habitats of indigenous species. In Australia you only have three ways to possibly deal with these animals: 1. Allow farmers to have decent firearms for pest eradication, and allow them to do so. 2. Poison the animals with some sort of poison and cause extensive ecological damage by killing animals and insects which feast on the corpses of the poisoned animals or likewise feed off flora covered in the poison. 3. Attempt to trap and relocate the animals to a different area. At the moment, this is not an option. These are you current options, and options two and three have already been used in the past, and have failed terribly. Option two was actually used to control the rabbit population in the 40's - 70's and is responsible for the spread of several diseases in rabbits, and lead to the immunity of said disease in later populations, but left the animals inedible by the standard predators. Seriously, just let people use semi-automatic, lever action, and pump action firearms to deal with pest animals. Arbitrarily restricting things for feel-good legislation is silly.

[QUOTE=Hinterlight;48073438]I don't think anyone in the US seriously thinks they could take on the US military head on, except for some fringe extremist groups. If a modern Civil War would ever break out it would be fought in a guerrilla fashion. The only reason why people even say that the second amendment is in place to allow the population to revolt against its government is because that was the initial intent of it, even if the concept is ridiculously unlikely in modern times and a revolt would most likely be quashed extremely quickly. That said, I am still glad the amendment is there because otherwise I wouldn't be able to purchase any firearms, and I would rather have the option to purchase rather than not. As others said, ex post facto style laws that criminalize the actions of those that already own something that is perfectly legal despite the fact that most owners of that thing (in this case lever action rifles and shotguns) have shown no ill intent as to how they use those things seems slightly tyrannical to me.[/QUOTE] no but states do have surplus federal military equipment so they would have some shot in the dark. Even if it seems irrelevant in todays society i would not push it aside for all we know a revolution could happen within the next 100 years or so.

i'm pretty sure if a full on revolt went down that we'd see large swaths of the military deserting to fight with the people, anyways

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48073503]Farmers that are hunting fast moving animals, such as rabbits, feral dogs, ferals cats, and foxes are better off having a semi-automatic, pump action, or lever action weapon. It makes it easier to do follow up shots in order to ensure that you take down as many pest animals as possible to clear them out. Australia at the moment has a very, very large issue with feral dog packs that roam and slaughter livestock animals like sheep, emus, and otherwise. Same thing with foxes and feral cats. It's estimated that feral dogs alone cost Australian farmers about one hundred to one hundred and twenty five million dollars annually by destruction of property and live stock. This doesn't even start to include the cost of the European rabbit and hare populations which damage crops, spread diseases, and destroy habitats of indigenous species. In Australia you only have three ways to possibly deal with these animals: 1. Allow farmers to have decent firearms for pest eradication, and allow them to do so. 2. Poison the animals with some sort of poison and cause extensive ecological damage by killing animals and insects which feast on the corpses of the poisoned animals or likewise feed off flora covered in the poison. 3. Attempt to trap and relocate the animals to a different area. At the moment, this is not an option. These are you current options, and options two and three have already been used in the past, and have failed terribly. Option two was actually used to control the rabbit population in the 40's - 70's and is responsible for the spread of several diseases in rabbits, and lead to the immunity of said disease in later populations, but left the animals inedible by the standard predators. Seriously, just let people use semi-automatic, lever action, and pump action firearms to deal with pest animals. Arbitrarily restricting things for feel-good legislation is silly.[/QUOTE] Again, unless I am misunderstanding what "primary producer" means, farmers are allowed Category C weapons with a permit, which includes pump action shotguns, and is what they're recategorizing lever action.

Meanwhile the Australian ecosystem is going down in flames because they already don't have enough hunters to deal with the invasive species. A vast swath of game animals are open season year round due to the hunting deficit.

You want to shoot Fox with Gun?