Gun Control

I am still against assault riffles, and think that if the government wanted martial law, a few people with them would not be able to stop it.

I'm actually more wary of gun nuts with assault rifles than I am of the threat of martial law...this country is so big that it wouldn't be troops marching through all of the streets, I'm sure it would be done in a more remote way than that.

But whatever, the last thing I'm going to do is sit around worrying about martial law.

 

In a big way, I agree with you. This is why I don't own any guns. I know that even if I was armed, most of the people around me are not. It wouldn't make me any safer, since I'd probably end up dead or imprisoned either way. I'd be like a hiker in an avalanche.

All I am saying is that people need to understand the REAL agenda behind gun control, which is all about disarming the public against the real enemy, which is the government. This is why we see gun-grab exercises taking place mostly in southern hick towns, which are heavily armed, unlike a predominately "liberal" area, such as where I live.

 

Hmm, where to begin??? I'll think more on this, and post again later.

 

Strongly against it.

 

against gun control or letting people own guns.

if marial law was declared, we still have knives, glass, baseball bats, rakes, axes, shovels, pepper spray, feces, wire, tasers and lasers, pencils, pens, bricks, and 2 by 4's.

 

Against gun control.

 

I would like to see all 100% of guns destroyed, but since that will never happen I'm against strict gun control, I'm in favour of background checks, but I don't want there to be a public list of gun owners, or even the background checks at the time to be public, you have the right to privatly buy a crossbow or a nailgun, either of which could kill someone, so I don't really see the point of going specifically after gun owners


I do feel that handguns should be more strictly regulated than rifles

I also feel that assault weapons have their place, some of them are frankly fun to go down to the range and shoot, I also know some people who hunt with them, a machine gun isn't nessescarily (I never spell that right) a machine gun all the time

and no one under 21 should be able to shoot any sort of gun but one that is one at a time, I.E. single action, basic rifles that have to be manually reloaded every time, that sort of thing, if you can't drink you shouldn't be aloud to fire 50 rounds in a minute let alone anything faster (and yes I know I'm under 21 and I have, but I've seen stupid people do stupid things and I would rather not see those repeated)

also no one should be able to legally even touch a gun until they are 10-12


just my personal opinions, but I think a fairly reasonable law could be made out of that, I think it covers all the bases.....

 

Gun politics in Switzerland
The gun policy in Switzerland is unique compared to those of other European countries. People are allowed (and in fact required) to keep their own arms and trade in them without any real constraints.

The most notable thing about Swiss gun habits is that every member of the Swiss army, which is a militia, keeps his personal assault rifle (the SIG 550) at home, together with some rounds of ammunition and his other personal military equipment. This means that every Swiss citizen, aged 20 to 42, who is fit for serving in the military, owns such a firearm. But only a very small minority of crimes are committed with army rifles, mainly suicides and domestic violence. A more common misdemeanour selling a rifle to someone and then reporting it "missing", perhaps by "losing" it during the journey home from the yearly repetition training.

The distribution of ammunition is strictly controlled. One can't buy the 5.56x45 mm ammo for assault rifles, and though assault rifles are broadly used in riflemen festivals (even 16 year old children can participate), it is nearly impossible to take some rounds home from a riflemen club.



Number of guns in circulation

In some 2001 statistics[1] (http://www.ssn.ethz.ch/info_dienst/medien/nzz/documents/2004/07/20040718Zivilewaffen.pdf), it is stated that there are about 420,000 assault rifles stored at private homes, mostly SIG 550 types. Additionally, there are some 320,000 assault rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, but they have been changed to non-automatic operation. There are several hundred thousand out-sorted carbines too. The total number of firearms at private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million; more liberal estimates put the number at 3 million. This means that 16 out of 100 inhabitants would possess a gun under the liberal estimate. According to these statistics, a great number of suicides were carried out by means a gun, and domestic violence in combination with firearms was "really" a "problem".



Carrying guns

To carry guns in public or outdoors, one must have a "Waffentragschein" (Weapon Carrying Permit), which will be, in most cases, only released to people working in a security company. Even possessing such a gun permit makes no difference to a normal citizen; everyone may only use force in case to avert immediate danger to life and limb. The police, naturally, have broader competences in regard to dealing with someone who is about to endanger one's life.



Conditions for getting a Carrying Permit

There are three conditions:

• fulfilling the conditions for a Buying Permit (see section below)
• stating plausibly that he needs to carry a gun to avert himself, other people or objects from an actual danger
• passing an exam testing weapon handling skills and knowledge about lawful use of the weapon

The Carrying Permit remains valid for five years and it applies only to the firearm type for which the permit was released. The state may add additional constraints to a specific permit. Hunters and game wardens do not need a Carrying Permit.



Buying guns

To buy a firearm in a commercial shop, one needs to have a "Waffenerwerbsschein" (Weapon Buying Permit). A new permit is needed for every purchase of a weapon. Everyone over the age of 18, not disabled or posing security problems (such as endangering his own life and the life of others) and having a clean criminal record can request such a permit. The sale of automatic and semi-automatic firearms is forbidden, and the seller must in each case verify the buyer's identity.

To buy a gun from an individual, no permit is needed, but the seller has to be sure that the buyer will fulfill the abovementioned conditions; also, they have to execute a written contract about the deal. The paper must indicate the identities of both the buyer and the seller as well as the weapon type, manufacturer name and the serial number of the gun.

After turning 18, everyone can buy single-round or multiple-barreled rifles and frontloaders without a permit. Likewise, members of a recognised rifle association do not need a Buying Permit for buying repeaters, and hunters do not need one for buying typical hunting rifles.



Historical Firearms

Switzerland is the only country in which it is lawful to make your own blackpowder.

 

Gun politics in the United States
US Firearms Legal Topics:Assault weapons banBrady Handgun ActBATFE (law enforcement)Firearm case lawGun Control Act of 1968Gun politics in the USGun Control (in USA by state)National Firearms Act2nd AmendmentStraw purchaseSullivan Act (New York)Violent Crime Control Act
The degree to which firearms can or should be regulated has long been debated in the United States, although no federal gun control of any form existed for the first 158 years of the country's history. Disagreements range from the practical (does gun ownership cause or prevent crime?) to the constitutional (how should one interpret the second amendment?).



Constitutional issues

The private ownership of guns is an especially contentious political topic in the United States, where the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states (this text is disputed):

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The meaning of this text remains fiercely debated, with some saying that the amendment only refers to official bodies under government control (such as the National Guard) and others saying that the amendment always guaranteed the right of independent individuals to possess and carry firearms. The first side argues that only "well regulated militia" have the right to keep and bear Arms, with debates over what, exactly 'the militia' is. Others say the phrase "the people" uncontroversially applies to individuals, as recent court rulings assert, rather than an organized collective. See Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.



Judicial rulings

The US Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the actual meaning of the Second Amendment, despite having had a variety of opportunities to do so. Gun rights advocates point out that the court has made statements that refer to this right as an individual right, although these statements are found in cases unrelated to the Second Amendment. Gun control advocates point out that the US Supreme Court has never taken a Second Amendment case and used it to strike down any gun control law. Federal circuit courts currently have conflicting rulings on the subject. For some of the opinions from the US Supreme Court which mention the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right of citizens, see cases: Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), U.S. v. Cruikshank, Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992), Poe v. Ullman, Konigsberg v. State Bar, Duncan v. Louisiana, Laird v. Tatum, Spencer v. Kemna (1998), Albright v. Oliver, United States v. Lopez and U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez. For a comprehensive related list, see firearm court cases.





Practical Questions

Gun control advocates and opponents disagree on more practical questions as well. There is an ongoing debate over the role that guns play in crime. Gun-rights groups claim that a well-armed citizenry prevents crime, while gun control organizations claim that increased gun ownership leads to higher levels of crime, suicide, and other negative outcomes. Questions of regulatory policy include:

• Types of firearm –Should some types of firearms be regulated differently than others?
• Criteria of eligibility – Are there criteria that disqualify a person from owning firearms? (Possible criteria include age, mental competence, firearm training, and felony conviction)
• Background checks – Should there be background checks made to verify eligibility to own a firearm? Who should make them, and should there be a waiting period before a firearm can be sold?
• Registration – Should all firearms and firearm owners be registered? If so, how may the registration information be used, and who should have access to it?
• Concealed weapons – Should carry of a concealed weapon be regulated? If so, should concealed carry be regulated separately from ownership, and if so, how?
• Enforcement –Once firearms policy is decided, will it be official policy to enforce these laws and how can they be enforced? (refer to Janet Reno's published statements regarding the near zero enforcement of firearms laws against known criminals as not being a priority)

People on both sides claim that the gun rights lobby is among the most effective and organized single-issue political groups in the United States. However, in-spite of that common perception and the best efforts of the gun rights lobby, the gun control/gun ban lobby has still managed to enact many gun control laws.



Self-defense

Both sides actively debate the relevance of self-defense in modern society. Some scholars, such as John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime, claim to have discovered a positive correlation between gun control legislation and crimes in which criminals victimize law-abiding citizens. Lott asserts that criminals ignore gun control laws, and are effectively deterred by armed intended victims.

Advocates of gun control, however, assert that because criminals obtain guns by stealing them from law-abiding gun owners, restricting their availability would decrease supply to the criminal element. They also assert that higher rates of gun ownership increase the number of crimes of passion.

Non-defensive uses of guns, such as hunting, varmint control and the sport of target shooting, are often lost in the debate despite being the most common reasons for private gun ownership. This is perhaps because focusing on defense allows for the broadest coverage of firearms, and some say the most in tune with the intent of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

The numbers of lives saved or lost by gun ownership are hotly debated. Problems include the difficulty of accounting accurately for confrontations in which no shots are fired, and jurisdictional differences in the definition of "crime". For example, some have argued that American statistics tend to over-count violent crimes, while English statistics tend to under-count them.

Proponents of gun control frequently argue that carrying a concealed pistol would be of no practical use for personal self-defense, while gun right advocates argue that individuals with proper firearm training are better able to defend themselves if carrying a handgun. Proponents of gun rights claim that in the US, there are up to 2.5 million incidents per year in which a lawfully-armed citizen averts being victimized by defending him or herself from a would-be attacker. Those who advance these statistics say that the deterrent effect would disproportionately benefit women, who are often targets of violent crime.



Security against tyranny and invasion

Another position taken by gun rights advocates is that an armed citizenry is the population's last line of defense against tyranny by their own government, as many believe was one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. They note that many soldiers in the American Revolution were ordinary citizens using their privately owned firearms. Gun control advocates answer that it is unrealistic to suppose that private citizens could oppose a government which controls the full power of the US Armed Forces, were it to become tyrannical. Some gun control advocates also claim that the people's power to replace elected officials by voting is sufficient to keep the government in check.

Invasion by hostile outside forces is another reason gun rights advocates oppose registration. If captured, the associated records would provide invaders with a means of locating and eliminating law-abiding resistance fighters. Location and capture of such records is a standard doctrine taught to military intelligence officers. The risk of the capture of such records is recognized as legitimate; firearms dealers are asked to destroy their records if an invasion is underway. Registration aside, gun rights advocates claim that an armed citizenry is a strong deterrent against a foreign invasion. They frequently cite tyrants who claimed to fear invading countries where the citizenry was heavily armed, or that they needed to disarm their own populace to be effective. However, this claim is highly disputed.

In the 2003 documentary Innocents Betrayed, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership advanced the claim that gun control laws have been a critical part of all genocides in the twentieth century. The documentary referred to laws restricting gun ownership to government officials passed in Nazi Germany, the USSR, and elsewhere.




Fully automatic weapons have been restricted in the United States since the National Firearms Act of 1934. The only available automatic firearms to civilians are those manufactured before May 19, 1986. Private owners must obtain permission from both the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF) and the county sheriff or chief of police, pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and finger prints, fully register the firearm, continually update the owner's address and location of the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a $200 transfer tax. This process takes approximately 6 months to complete. Additionaly, the firearm can never be handled or transported by any other private individual unless the firearm's registered owner is present. Some states require state permission as well, and some states prohibit any sort of possession under any terms. Otherwise, automatic firearms are available only to police or military personnel.

 

Gun politics in the United Kingdom
The United Kingdom has some of the strictest gun legislation in the world. All guns except low-powered airguns and shotguns (which have a less strict control system), can only be obtained if a person holds a "firearms certificate" (gun licence) which can be obtained from the local police, and is renewable every five years.

A separate firearms certificate is required for each individual firearm, except for shotguns where one certificate enables the ownership of as many shotguns as can be safely accommodated.

To obtain a firearms certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has "good reason" to own each gun, and that they can be trusted with it "without danger to the public safety or to the peace". Generally speaking, gun licences are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting or work related reasons for owning a gun. Since 1946, self defence has not been considered a viable reason to own a gun.

Any person who has spent more than three years in prison is automatically banned for life from attaining a gun license.

Any person holding a gun licence must comply with strict conditions, such as conditions on the strorage of firearms in a secure place. And also the recording of any firearm related purchases (such as bullets etc) which must be logged. Failure to comply with any of these conditions can mean the forfeiture of the gun licence, which would mean that any firearms held must be handed in to the police.

The penalty for owning a gun illegally without a certificate is now a mandatory minimum five year prison sentence and possibly an unlimited fine.

Restrictions on gun ownership began in 1903 and a licensing system was introduced in 1920, spurred on partly due to fears of a surge in crime that might have resulted from the large number of guns available following World War I. Gun laws have steadily been tightened ever since.

Automatic weapons have been completely banned from private ownership since 1937. In 1988 semi-automatic rifles (except for .22 rimfire) were completely banned for private ownership following the Hungerford Massacre the previous year.

Since 1997, handguns have been completely banned for private ownership following legislation passed shortly after the Dunblane massacre in 1996 (exceptions to the ban include muzle-loading "Blackpowder" guns, pistols of antique and historical interest, starting pistols and shot pistols for pest control). Even Britain's Olympic shooters fall under this ban; the British pistol shooting team is thus forced to live and train outside the country. Due to shooting being a minority interest sport in the UK, there was relatively little resistance to the legislation, although it had opponents on both sides of the argument (those who felt it was too weak, and those who felt it went too far).


According to Home Office figures released in January of 2003 [1] (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/01/10/ngun10.xml), gun related crime has increased since the 1997 ban.

Figures released by the Home Office in April of 2003 show a marked decrease in overall crime including violent crime; however, the total number of law enforcement personnel in the UK has reached an all-time high. [2] (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,930166,00.html)

From June 2003 to June 2004, recorded gun crime in the UK rose by 3% to 10,590 incidents. There was also a 14% rise in violent crime in the April-June period (265,800 incidents compared to 223,600 the previous year). Advocates on both sides of the gun control debate have argued how this is correctly interpreted with no concensus.

1. Yet Britain remains one of the countries with the lowest homicide rate in the world accounting for 853 homicides in the reporting period 2003/04 according to the UK Home Office for Crime Statistics [3] (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp). At a population of more than 59 Mio. that translates into 1.4 homicides per 100,000 residents.

 

Gun politics in Finland
Finland is one of the most progressive nations in Europe with regard to personal firearm ownership.

There are over two million licensed firearms and an estimated quarter-million unlicensed firearms in Finland, with firearms being present in approximately 1/4 of Finnish homes, with most firearms licensed for hunting. Firearm statistics include signalling pistols, which are very common as boating and yachting are popular sports in the country.

Sound suppressors, a firearm accessory strictly regulated in many other jurisdictions, are also widely available in Finland. Their use is promoted as a public good, as they reduce the noise pollution that firearms practice could otherwise produce, and reduce hearing injuries in frequent shooters and range operators. The presence of silencers is not considered problematic as they are almost never used in crimes.

Private ownership of Tear gas or Pepper spray is licensed for the purposes of personal protection, collection, training, or education.

Black powder firearms manufactured prior to 1890 are free to be possessed without regulation, but for shooting with them needs license.



Civil reserve

The military reservists have bought for themselves pistols, target rifles, shotguns and semi-automatic rifles for practice shooting. This has been passively supported by the government, as it gives to the reservists possibility to practice shooting with military style weapons without requiring government spending. Their actual service weapons are stored by the Defence Forces, and are only given to the persons in training situations and when there is a risk of a war.



Regulation

The ownership and use of firearms is regulated by the Firearms Act of 1998.

Firearms can only be obtained with a license, which can be obtained from the local police for €32. A separate license is required for each individual firearm and family members can have a parallel licenses to use the same firearm.

To obtain a firearms license, the individual must declare a valid reason to own a gun. Acceptable reasons include: hunting, sports or hobby, profession related, show or promotion or exhibition, collection or museum, souvenir, and signaling.

Possession of destructive devices such as rocket and grenade launchers, breech loading cannons, artillery rockets, or automatic weapons is generally not permitted. The Finnish Ministry of the Interior has discretion to license such devices to collectors or for motion picture production or exhibition use.

The firearms certificate may be cancelled if a person has committed a violent, gun-related, drug-related crime or broken certificate rules. Also physical and mental problems or reckless behavior are solid grounds for canceling the certificate.

Possessing a firearm without a license is punishable. Unlicensed firearms may be turned over to the police without punishment, provided this happens under the individual's own initiative. Firearms surrender in this manner are auctioned to the public or destroyed.

Gun laws were last changed 1998. At that time flare guns became subject to licensing, and some types of ammunition were specified especially dangerous.

 

Gun politics in Canada
In Canada, gun control is a controversial issue, though less contentious than in the United States. Handguns have been controlled in Canada by statute since Confederation in 1867. The Criminal Code of Canada enacted in 1892, required individuals to have a permit to carry a pistol unless the owner had cause to fear assault or injury. It was an offence to sell a pistol to anyone under 16. Vendors who sold handguns had to keep records, including purchaser's name, the date of sale and a description of the gun.



History of gun control in Canada

Criminal Code of Canada amendments between the 1890s and 1990s steadily increased the restrictions on firearms. These included the following:

• In the 1920s permits became necessary for all firearms newly acquired by foreigners.
• In 1947 the offence of “constructive murder” was added to the Criminal Code for offences resulting in death, when the offender carried a firearm. This offence was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 1987 case called R. v. Vaillancourt
• Automatic weapons were added to the category of firearms that had to be registered in 1951. The registry system was centralized under the Commissioner of the RCMP.
• The categories of “firearm,” “restricted weapon” and “prohibited weapon” were created in 1968-69. Police were given preventive powers of search and seizure by judicial warrant if they had grounds to believe that weapons endangered the safety of an individual.
• Legislative provisions between 1977 and 1979 required Firearms Acquisition Certificates for all weapons and provided controls on the selling of ammunition. Fully automatic weapons were prohibited. Applicants for Firearms Acquisition Certificates were required to take a safety course.
• Between 1991 and 1994, legislation tightened up restrictions and established controls on military, paramilitary and high-firepower weapons.
• In 1995, new, and much stricter, gun control legislation was passed. The current legislation provides harsher penalties for crimes involving firearm use, licenses to possess and acquire firearms, and registration of all firearms, including shotguns and rifles.

There are groups who oppose this legislation, arguing that guns are necessary for hunting and farm use as well as recreational purposes including target shooting, and should not be restricted. Many Canadians are of the view that the majority of gun owners are law abiding, and that registration of firearms (other than handguns) adds little of social value and is costly.

The pressure that led to the current law began with the École Polytechnique Massacre in Montreal on December 6, 1989, and was given further impetus with the Oka Crisis in 1990. The legislation was written primarily to avoid situations such as Oka, not irrational behaviour. Notice that the firearm used in the École Polytechnique Massacre (A Ruger Mini-14) is still non-restricted, yet all firearms used by the natives at Oka are now prohibited. The present law requires all firearms to be registered. The cost of this registry soared to 5000% higher than its original $2 million dollar budget. This proved embarrassing for the Liberal Government and has led to increased calls for the registry's dismantlement. The government explained that the registry was originally supposed to recover its costs through registration fees. The Ministry later decided to not charge any fees, to increase the registration rate, partially causing the huge increase in the registry's cost.

It has been estimated that as many as 900,000 gun-owning Canadians have not registered their firearms. As of June 2003, 6.4 million firearms had been registered which is far short of the government's 1974 estimate of 10 million guns in Canada. Currently, all provinces and territories save Quebec (which has the lowest gun ownership rate) oppose the registry and refuse to prosecute violators. Supporters of the firearms registry state that it makes no sense to abandon the project midstream, while opponents point out that the 110% error rate (many registry entries have multiple errors) means that there is nothing worth saving. In February, 2003 the government announced plans to strengthen the administration of the gun control program. In May, 2004 the government dropped all fees for transferring firearms, two days before announcing the election.



Violent crime in Canada

Whatever the outcome of the 1995 legislation, Canada has a long tradition of gun control. The rates of violent crime have been stable (e.g., the homicide rate) or declining (in several other categories of violent crime). Although Canada's gun violence rates are lower than those of the United States, Canada's overall violent crime statistics are higher; in 2003, Canada had 958 violent crimes per 100,000 population (vs. 523 in the United States), and 60% of U.S. states have lower crime rates (both violent and property crime) than any Canadian province. Gun-rights activists argue that this supports their contention that a more widespread availability of guns, as in the United States, could help to depress crime in Canada, but this interpretation is disputed by others.



Complex political situation

1. Matters of gun control are further complicated by factors such as different police bodies and the role of provincial jurisdictions in gun law applications. Long before the present federal laws were enacted the two biggest and richest provinces, Ontario and Quebec (with more than half of the Canadian population between them) had very strict provincial firearm registration systems. Again unlike the other provinces, Ontario and Quebec have separate provincial police forces (much like the larger state police forces in the US) while all other provinces have the federally controlled Royal Canadian Mounted Police doing all police work outside the big cities. Thus, groups who might have normally opposed (or favoured) gun control in other circumstances find themselves in the other camp because of their desire to uphold provincial rights (or the identity of Quebec society) against federal centralization or vice versa. Thus, some provincial groups who might have opposed gun control because of the nature of their normal philosophical stance, had they been located in the US, are often in a political situation where they are asking for even stricter controls than those called for by the federal government, with the provision of course that application of these controls be left in provincial hands. It has to be recognized, however, that gun control is not the flagship issue for the political right in Canada that it is in the US. In Canada it is more of a rural versus urban issue.

 

Gun politics in Australia
Gun politics, and in particular, gun control in Australia was, before 1996, largely an issue for state governments. Historically, Australia has always had tough restrictions on handguns (requiring shooters to be members of registered gun clubs, and conducting extensive police checks on pistol shooters), whilst rifles and shotguns were considerably less restricted, with the only real restrictions on fully-automatic rifles.

In Australia, firearm advocacy organisations have never approached the strength of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the United States and political sympathisers generally are quite discreet in their support. The perceived lack of support by politicians is generally attributed to the distribution of electoral seats in Australia, with a vast majority of electorates lying over areas with high population density, places with obviously much lower gun ownership rates.

Significant changes to firearms control in Australia have usually followed a high profile spree killing. In 1987, the Hoddle Street spree killing and the Queen Street spree killing took place in Melbourne, Victoria. In response, several Australian states required the registration of all guns, restricted the availability of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. However, firearm laws in several states, including Queensland and Tasmania, remained relatively relaxed.



Port Arthur massacre

Things changed drastically with the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. The killing of 35 people saw an outcry around the country and gun control advocates used the popular support to push for the nationwide banning of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and more stringent requirements to obtain a gun license. Several states, most notably Queensland, objected to the changes, believing them to be too restrictive (for instance, restricting the ownership of semi-automatic small-calibre weapons with relatively weak terminal ballistics) and that gun-control advocates were exaggerating the effectiveness of the changes (a still-legal century-old .30-06 bolt action rifle has far more kinetic energy than modern small-caliber weapons, is capable of inflicting greater damage through barriers, and is more accurate at range). Firearms advocates opposed the changes on this basis, as well as their belief that disarming law-abiding citizens only assists spree killers and criminals.

Newly elected Prime Minister John Howard, already known to be a strong advocate of gun control, sought a national agreement to tighten laws, eventually threatening recalcitrant states with the possibility of a constitutional referendum (which, in the climate, would almost certainly have passed) to transfer power over gun laws to the Commonwealth. The American group, the National Rifle Association endeavoured to intervene in the issue by supporting gun advocates, but their involvement was not well-received by some in the Australian public. Eventually, agreement was reached between the states and the changes went through.

The Howard Government introduced a 1% levy on income tax for a period of one year to finance the buy back semi-automatic weapons from gun owners. This scheme was subject to criticism in its implementation (apparently some of the confiscated weapons ended up back on sale in gun shops), but, on the whole, televised images of large numbers of rifles and shotguns being crushed by heavy machinery were well-received by a section of the Australian public. Others such as the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia have derided the $A500 million gun buyback as an immense failure - in 1995 67 Australians died from homicides-by-firearm. The same year 54 died of accidental aspirin overdose. [1] (http://www.ssaa.org.au/iladec97.html). As a comparison, in 2003 2213 Australians died from suicide [2] (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/a61b65ae88ebf976ca256def00724cde?OpenDocument) and in 2004 the federal government spent $A10 million on the National Advisory Council on Suicide Prevention. [3] (http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/health-mediarel-yr2004-tw-wor006.htm)

Following the firearms laws changes, John Howard apparently took the precaution of wearing a bullet-proof vest while addressing a gathering of pro-firearm advocates, an unusual step for an Australian politician at the time.



Monash University shootings

Laws remained static until 2002, when a pistol-owning international student killed two fellow students at Monash University in Victoria, prompting a reexamination of existing handgun laws. As in 1996, the Federal Government prompted State Governments to review handgun laws, and as a result, ammended legislation was adopted in all states and territories. Key changes included an arbitrary 10 round magazine capacity limit, a caliber limit of less than .38, a firearm length limit of not less than 120mm, a more strict sporting requirement for handgun purchase, mandatory safe inspections, etc. These new laws were also derided by the gun-owning public, citing such factors as small-caliber centerfire loadings (cited as "high powered" in the popular media) being perfectly lethal and far more effective at armor penetration, that longer barrels inherently give better accuracy and greater terminal ballistics, and that a person carrying two legal 10 round magazines can shoot just as many times as a man carrying a more expensive and bulky 20 round magazine.

The new changes had a significant impact on gun ownership in Australia, requiring many law-abiding gun owners to relinquish their property for compensation, some for less than a tenth of market value, some for a good deal more than their value. This buyback was widely criticized - in the state of Victoria $A21 million was spent buying back 18,124 firearms, while in the same period Victorians imported 15,184 firearms. In most cases, gun owners did not give up their hobby, but simply exchanged now illegal firearms for new legal firearms, obviating any perceived safety value in permanently removing firearms from circulation. [4] (http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-19pop.html)



Firearms and crime in Australia

According to government reports, more than 98% of all firearm related homicides are committed by unregistered firearms. In 1997-1999, more than 80% of the handguns confiscated were never legally purchased or registered in Australia. [5] (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi151.html) Knives are used up to 3 times as often as firearms in robberies. [6] (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi159.html)

The number of unregistered or uncontrolled firearms continues to increase, with an average of over 4,000 firearms stolen a year, primarily from residences (although one gun-dealer had approximately 600 firearms stolen sometime between 1999 and 2000). [7] (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi031.html) Concern has been raised about the number of smuggled pistols reaching Australia, particularly in New South Wales. This has in fact become a hot issue in recent times as some people are becoming more sympathetic to private gun owners and the burdensome restrictions placed on them, forcing the political climate to focus more on the criminals using the weapons and less on the weapons themselves.



Firearm sports at the Olympics

Some change in public attitudes to firearms has been attributed by many to publicity for high profile shooters, such as the recent overwhelming success of Australian athletes in firearm sports at the Olympics. The plight of Olypmic athlete Michael Diamond, and his struggle with the gun laws before competing in the games in order to try to break a long standing Australian gold medal record.

 

The 1938 Nazi Weapons Law that disarmed, enslaved & murdered the men above, is alive and well in the United States, and is called, "The Gun Control act of 1968", and is enforced by the modern day gestapo, known as the "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms (BATF)."

.http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm

 

The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? "Gun control" did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.

The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.

In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people.

The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 -- one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany -- new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.

1. Given the parallels between the Nazi Weapons Law and the GCA '68, we concluded that the framers of the GCA '68 -- lacking any basis in American law to sharply cut back the civil rights of law abiding Americans -- drew on the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938.

 

.

 

1. GUN CONTROL IN GERMANY: 1928 to 1945 #1062
   [1062]$10.88
   Click to enlarge
   Click to enlargeThe book presents the complete texts of both the Weimer gun-control law of 1928 and the National Socialist firearms law of 1938 in photographic form, just as they appeared in the German statute books, along with complete English translations of both. Jews in the Congress and in the media have taken the lead in pushing for anti-gun laws. Gun owners have noticed this, and from the beginning resentment against Jews has grown among patriots. To counter this resentment, Jews launched a clever and deceitful program of disinformation intended to confuse and mislead patriots. They infiltrated the patriot movement and spread the false notion that the campaign to disarm Americans was inspired not by the Jews, but by the "Nazis." They launched a noisily Jewish organization, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), which made the claim that Hitler was a gun grabber and that when he came to power he disarmed the German people. The JPFO's advertisements showed Adolf Hitler with his right arm raised in the German salute and carried the slogan: "All in favor of gun control raise your right hand." The truth about the matter is that Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist party in Germany were sympathetic to gun owners, and they encouraged gun ownership and the use of firearms by German civilians. Gun legislation passed during the Hitler period ameliorated gun-control laws which had been enacted earlier by liberals and Jews. Hitler's principal firearms law, passed in March 1938, abolished altogether the earlier license requirements for rifles and shotguns, lowered the legal age for gun ownership from 20 to 18 years, extended the period of validity for a permit to carry a handgun from one year to three years, and eliminated limits on the amount of ammunition or the number of guns which could be owned by a citizen. Gun Control in Germany exposes the lie about gun-control in Germany and makes it clear who is behind the gun-control campaign in America. If you have a patriotic friend who has been taken in by Jewish lies about "Nazi" gun grabbers, this is the book for him. 8½ inches x 11 inches. 48 pages ----- Soft Cover
   

 

Thats was to add a little twist .

 

Yeah, well try imagining this: a crew of half a dozen Brownshirts smashes the glass of a Jewish toymaker's shop on Kristallnacht, and start throwing toys in a pile on the floor to set on fire. They grab the old gentleman from behind the counter and kick him around in the street while he cries and begs for his life.

Suddenly his grandson steps out from behind a counter and starts firing a large pistol at the S.A. men. Four go down before they grab the kid and smash the life out of him.

Do you suppose it might have been a little harder to do recruiting for new Brownshirts the next day? Even the ones that survived might start getting the heebie-jeebies about mixing with a hostile native population where you never know if a kid is going to come out at you with a gun (we've heard enough of that nowadays, at least!). If some were wounded, then the sight of a couple of men around the S.A. meeting hall missing a hand or a leg might have made the rest of them think twice about their juvenile fantasies of grand adventure; at the very least it would make them cautious, which would have meant they got a lot less intimidation and harassment done.

In the same vein, a few extra guns among the resistance might not have stopped Hitler. Nonetheless, every lone hero making trouble on the German home front took soldiers away from the siege at Stalingrad. A few less, and perhaps the tide would have turned months sooner than it did, saving many lives all over Europe.

 

I used to own several guns but sold I sold them off years ago. My older brother and I used to own:


1 20 gauge shotgun

2 12 gauge shotguns

2 .22 rifles

1 .22 semi-auto pistol

Gun control: Hitting where you're aiming....