The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Well we all could say "told you so" but hey that would upset the kinder gentler folks would it not.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2016091 ... un-control

While anti-gun politicians like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama tout Australia’s gun control laws as a model for the United States, recent reporting on crime in Melbourne from newspaper The Age revealed the limitations of Australia’s stringent laws. According to the paper, “Despite Australia’s strict gun control regime, criminals are now better armed than at any time since then-Prime Minister John Howard introduced a nationwide firearm buyback scheme in response to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.” The paper’s reporting illustrates what gun rights advocates have long contended; that gun controls merely disarm the law-abiding and are ineffective in confronting criminal conduct.

What part of "laws are for the law abiding" do these people not get?

The stricter controls were to take firearms of lawful owners not criminals, so in that aspect it did work.

Polititicans, forever the criminal friends, looking after their soul brothers.

Jeez, who'da thought!

What is really amusing is that most shooters took the settlements from the buy-backs of semi-autos, pumps, etc., and bought several new bolt-actions, over-unders and what-have-you. In fact overall numbers of firearms in the hands of the licences shooters were said to have increased significantly. All that changed was the types.

In Canada after the 1978 tightening of the gun laws, the RCMP were boasting about the lower numbers of homicides with firearms. What they very quietly hid away in the statistics was the fact that homicides by blunt instruments, blades, motor vehicles, etc., went up by almost exactly the same percentage as the decline in the number by firearms. In fact, they didn't save a single life - just changed the method.

Gun control doesn't work. Never has. Unfortunately it doesn't stop the fools in government from trying ever more stringent controls.

Except for handguns their gun laws are actually wrose then ours !
And they general public seem to be more anti gun from what I have been reading online !

Only in the big cities. It's just like Canada. The people in the rural areas understand the necessity for firearms and use them, but the city-dwellers just don't get it.

The laws seem to change from state to state in Australia and are bordering on draconian with some firearms being banned simply based on appearance.

Ovenpaa wrote:...some firearms being banned simply based on appearance.

Yes indeed, the dreaded 'Looks like it may be dangerous ' laws. We are not immune from it here in NZ. Semi-automatic rifles are OK, unless they have a free-standing pistol grip, a flash eliminator or a bayonet lug. None of which really affects the usefulness of the gun, but they look nasty. Apparently that is somehow important. Magazines that only hold 5 rounds require a special import permit if they look like they can hold more than 10 rounds.

I continually remind myself that it could always be worse. I could live in the UK or Australia where the gun laws make even less sense...

Who would have thought the anti gunners would ban safety features?!