Confiscation has begun

[karlac]

I believe much of what you know of Australian firearm laws, society, history and mindset is largely from biased sources with limited exposure.

It's highly likely I lived and worked there before you were born, and obviously before the revisionist history you spout was taught to you by the same progressive mindset that caused your citizens to give up their arms.

 

[easy rider]

I would venture to guess that many of the firearms are hunting rifles and not handguns. And of those rifles, probably not many modern sporting rifles (AR's and AK's).

 

[karlac]

I would venture to guess that many of the firearms are hunting rifles and not handguns. And of those rifles, probably not many modern sporting rifles (AR's and AK's).

You'd be most likely correct, didn't see many handguns in OZ the few years I lived there. Most were indeed military surplus rifles. AAMOF, I carried an Enfield 303 daily when hunting feral water buffalo in Arnham Land/Cape York Peninsula while working, in the early to mid 60's, for an abattoir outside of Darwin that sold the meat to the US for pet food.

 

[easy rider]

As far as this thread goes, when I first read the story I pretty much knew it was false, being from where it was supposed to have taken place.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

You'd be most likely correct, didn't see many handguns in OZ the few years I lived there. Most were indeed military surplus rifles. AAMOF, I carried an Enfield 303 daily when hunting feral water buffalo in Arnham Land/Cape York Peninsula while working, in the early to mid 60's, for an abattoir outside of Darwin that sold the meat to the US for pet food.

Totally freaking wild....

 

[karlac]

Totally freaking wild....

LOL Hitchhiking, mostly by boat and airplane around the country, I was in the Swan Hotel pub in Darwin one night at last call. Dude cut in front of me in the queue trying to get his beer. Grabbed him by the shoulder's picked him up and deposited him behind me, he laughed and we got to talking. He was a Greek who owned the abattoir, noticed my accent, asked me if I knew anything about horses and could I shoot a rifle. Answering in the affirmative, he hired me on the spot. He and I, three Aborigine trackers/skinners, two Land Rovers and ten head of horses left the next morning at 5 AM, not to return to Darwin for almost 3 months, me with perpetual heartburn from eating his buffalo liver curry that we lived on.

 

[Davetex]

Cool story, what an adventure.

 

[343Gatter]

It's highly likely I lived and worked there before you were born, and obviously before the revisionist history you spout was taught to you by the same progressive mindset that caused your citizens to give up their arms.

Regardless of how progressive and liberal you think I (country lad, hunter, slaughterman, soldier, oilfield hand) am, I have my doubts you can positively prove anything I said as incorrect.

Yes the majority of firearms in Australia are not semi automatic as licencing is a needs based system, to own a semi automatic firearm you need to provide evidence that a manual repeating rifle is insufficient for the purpose.

That being said, occupational hunters, farmers and competative shooters have no real issue proving they need semi-automatic firearms.

As for handguns, even before any sort of firearms legislation was ever introduced, they weren't that common here anyway.

 

[Charlie]

Regardless of how progressive and liberal you think I (country lad, hunter, slaughterman, soldier, oilfield hand) am, I have my doubts you can positively prove anything I said as incorrect.

Yes the majority of firearms in Australia are not semi automatic as licencing is a needs based system, to own a semi automatic firearm you need to provide evidence that a manual repeating rifle is insufficient for the purpose.

That being said, occupational hunters, farmers and competative shooters have no real issue proving they need semi-automatic firearms.

As for handguns, even before any sort of firearms legislation was ever introduced, they weren't that common here anyway.

Why would anyone have to "prove" they need something to the government? To me, that is ridiculous. In my opinion. WE are the people, the governments works for us (supposedly).

 

[343Gatter]

Why would anyone have to "prove" they need something to the government? To me, that is ridiculous. In my opinion. WE are the people, the governments works for us (supposedly).

I agree with you on that. I have no issue with proving I am a law abiding citizen, showing my competence and obtaining a licence and buying registered firearms. The purpose of this system is to draw a line in the sand, good guys on this side bad guys on that side. The firearm licencing system here have a similar resemblance to a car licencing system.

But, the major flaw in my opinion is that, once going through the licencing process, I shouldn't have to prove why I want a semi-auto and have to apply for another category of licence, any fool knows you can do significant damage with a manual repeating rifle in the hands of the wrong person, same as a car for that matter. It is flaw that is being pushed hard to be removed from the Firearms Act, and in some states here they have already had success. But just like the US, here there is always the opposite side who use emotion and blatant to argue their point not fact.

For example there was a push to get a particular brand of lever action shotgun categorised as a semi-auto because one of the minor parties, the Greens (progressives/liberals) believed it was "semi-automatic in nature".

A video by Ricky Muir, a Senator in Australian government is a good one to watch when he demonstrates the firearms functionality explains ignorance should dictate legislation:



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[BRD@66]

Why would anyone have to "prove" they need something to the government? To me, that is ridiculous. In my opinion. WE are the people, the governments works for us (supposedly).

Ah, you're thinking about the USA - a well-known former penal colony.

 

[Davetex]

Ah, you're thinking about the USA - a well-known former penal colony.

No, no, no, that's San Fransisco.

 

[TheDan]

THis is a false story - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/seattle-police-confiscate-mans-guns-without-warrant/

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I never heard anything about that.

Did you check snopes to see if it's true?

 

[easy rider]

I only fact check with CNN. They never get it wrong.

 

[oldag]

You can simply google it man. It's no coincidence that the British started sending their indentured servants to contintental Terra Australis (later New Holland, later Australia), about 10 years after the American independence. The British had penal colonies in the US long before the war of independence, even other people on this thread cited references to this. America is no exception. At the same time penal colonies were being set up in Aus, free settlers were arriving and the convicts (indentured servants no longer being accepted in the US) were used as labourers to build towns and infrastructure.

Australia didn't surrender all it's guns in '96, hands down the biggest misconception of the lot. The government gave an option, if you have an unlicenced unregistered firearm (which was already illegal at the time in '96 as licencing and registering of firearms was introduced in the '74), nows your chance to surrender it and we won't ask questions or get it registered if you have an appropriate licence. That and stricter storage laws (you have to keep your gats in a safe) and licence categorisation came in (hunting, sport, occupational, etc).

90% of Australians didn't hand their guns in as 90% of Australians didn't have firearms to begin with. In 96 we had a population of 18 million, there was estimated 4 million legally and illegally owned firearms in Australia. After the buyback, there was 2.3 million legally owned and an estimated million illegal firearms left in circulation. As of today, 2018 there is 3.5 million legally owned firearms and estimated million illegal firearms, with a population of 24 million. So the percentage of ownership never really decreased that drasticaly as you stated. Also about 10-30% of the "surrendered firearms" were sold back into circulation after the buyback as registered firearms anyway.

Civilians still own more firearms than the government, by about 3 million more in civilian hands. I myself own 4 rifles and hunt very regularly (we don't have restricting seasons, hunting permits, bag limits, or need leases etc).

Also, it was not progressives that led the buyback (or surrender as you put it), it was the conservative party in power at the time.

I believe much of what you know of Australian firearm laws, society, history and mindset is largely from biased sources with limited exposure.

On to the world wars,
I don't really know why you're talking about Japan, and I hadn't mentioned WW2 at all to be honest, as no one denies the US contribution to WW2 was vastly significant compared to WW1. Which is why I wasn't arguing your point of the US garganutuan effort in WW2, only stating your point that America saved the day in WW1 as over exaggerated.

But once again, there is debate to be had here, in WW2 the US had what no one else did, and that is time. The US was not equipped to fight anyone effectively in 1939 just as no one else was. Nor really in 1940. And the US Army suffered defeats in the North African desert, Filipines and other theatres just like everyone else did. The US truly was one of the only nations in WW2 that had the luxury of being able to withdraw, regroup, rearm, supply.

The fact is on a manpower ratio the British Commonwealth landed more soldiers than the US on D-Day in Normandy, this was also true of the North African campaign and I think also the Italian Campaign, and I don't even think the US took part in the Greek/Sciliy Campaign, Middle East campaign, nor the South East Asia campaign. The main theatre the US truly tipped the balance in a manpower capacity was the Pacific campaign.

The US true strength in WW2 was its capacity to manufacture and supply. (Even I was always amazed how when I was in the Aus Army the US seemed to have no issue with supplying their guys with fuckin' ice cream and cake in the desert haha), the US turned out more equipment and supplies than anyone else in a shorter amount of time possible at that time, and their means of logistics were astounding, there was no way that the enemy was able to stand up against the volume of armoured vehicles, ships, planes, artillery that the US and USSR could produce.

But the end state here is this, this is not a pissing contest. No one could have done it without the other, and that is the absolute truth. We are allies. Myself I worked closely with the US military in my time in the Army, my own countrymen have fought and died in Afghanistan since 2001 with yours, and Iraq since day 1, and Somalia, and Vietnam and Korea, WW2, WW1, infact Australians also helped supply the Confederates in the US civil war with both men and material (that's a fun fact to read up on). To talk down to my countrymen like you are some higher being that we are some idiotic subserviant slaves under our masters whip is pretty disrespectful to our ancestors who died together and simply, incorrect.

Also yeah, I get the feeling that the original article this thread is about was kinda made up or at leasy extremely embellished. It's appeared on multiple fact check sites as such.

I have read accounts of Aussies who are nowhere near as sanguine as you seem to be regarding gun restrictions.

 

[easy rider]

True, most I talked to about it are furious over it.

 

[toddnjoyce]

...I have no issue with proving I am a law abiding citizen, showing my competence and obtaining a licence and buying registered firearms.

The purpose of this system is to draw a line in the sand, good guys on this side bad guys on that side.

Glad it works for you.

Here’s how I read what you wrote: Where I live, the government assumes I’m a criminal until I prove I’m not.

Don’t work like that here.

 

[Brains]

Glad it works for you.

Here’s how I read what you wrote: Where I live, the government assumes I’m a criminal until I prove I’m not.

Don’t work like that here.

Well it perhaps does, they do assume you're a criminal. They just have the inconvenient requirement of proving it.

 

[343Gatter]

I have read accounts of Aussies who are nowhere near as sanguine as you seem to be regarding gun restrictions.

I can about say that most of them werent even alive when the main firearms act in '74 came into play. The '96 reform after the PA massacre was over publicised.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk