Hi Rhosty

You have just made derogatory racist stereotypes of white people who live in the South of the USA. I never figured you for a racist, Rhosty, but welcome to the club.

Here are some facts about racism in the USA.

There are five-and-one-half as many whites as blacks in the USA. But....

* There are almost 2 MILLION black-on-white violent assaults in the USA country every year. Blacks are 18 times (1,800%) more likely to commit a violent crime against a white person, than a white person is against a black person.

* A black man is 9 times (900%) more likely to rape a white woman, than a white man a black woman.

* “Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.”

* Nationally, youth gangs are 90 percent non-white. “Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs. Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely.”

* Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

* Blacks are eight times more likely than people of other races to rob someone, and 5.5 times more likely to steal a car.

Now Rhosty, after reading these figures, which race do you consider to be the most racist? Given the unacceptable threat that blacks pose to whites, might it be understandable that white people might seek to use any means like the KKK to defend themselves from black racist violence? Since the demise of the KKK, black crime has gone right out of control in the South. In 1993, in Washington DC, the mayor (Sharon Kelly) begged the governor to release the National Guard because the Washington police admitted that they had lost control of the streets of the US capitol.

Sorta puts a different slant on it, dunnit?

Suse,

I've just come back from shooting a brace of rabbits and a hare.
Our rabbits are not skinny and these three animals will make four meals for my wife and I and the left overs will be appreciated by the chooks, as were the innards.
I used a very high tech firearm, a reproduction of a Barnett Trade Gun of circa 1780, in 20 gauge.

See: http://www.thefurtrapper.com/images/Barnett%20Trade%20Gun.jpg

The gun is registered of course, if it were an original it would not have to be registered and no licence required to keep it.

A friend of mine has four Brown Bess muskets, as were carried by the troops on the First Fleet; three are absolutely original even to a fairly seen coat of the brown paint that gave them their name.
The fourth is a reproduction Brown Bess musket that he uses in re-enactments, it is of an inferior quality to the originals.
The repro has to be registered but not the originals.

Now that makes sense [?] and Australia is one of the few countries that requires flintlock muzzle loading guns to be registered if one wants to use one.
Perhaps the authorities are afraid that someone might go on the rampage with one and hold off the police as he/she fires a shot every two or three minutes.

Here's a nice repro: http://www.middlesexvillagetrading.com/images/thumb_M1BB_full.JPG
[click photo to enlarge]

Sorry about that to see the enlarged and clearer pics go to
http://www.middlesexvillagetrading.com/M1BB.shtml
and have a read.

Aidan, that argument doesn't hold water either.
Methamphetamine is a huge problem in rural White communities in the U.S just as crack cocaine and marijuana have a hold on Black communities, meth is endemic in areas like Montana, Oklahoma, Idaho and Indiana as well as rural California and Oregon.
Look at the list of the poorest counties in the U.S.A:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lowest-income_counties_in_the_United_States
There's clearly no relationship between either isolation or poverty and violent crime, most of the poorest yet most peaceful counties are over 90% White, the most violent are all over 40% Black.
Rhrosty said that poor, rural Whites were violent when it's easily dmonstrated that they are the least violent communities and that the Ku Klux Klan contributed to that violence when even the radical anti White hate site the SPLC can only come up with about 20 murders attributable to "White Supremacists" in the last twenty years (they say 100 but they include the Utoya massacre in Norway since Breivik allegedly emailed his manifesto to some neo Nazis in the states).
"White Supremacist" gangs are known for two things, their paranoia and their propensity for killing each other, they rarely attack or kill anyone who's not White and not an associate of their gang.
The F.B.I crime figures have also also become unreliable since 2005 when they re classified Latin Americans as "White", apart from a few very isolated cases Whites simply don't commit violent, racially motivated crime:
http://www.amren.com/features/2013/11/a-meaningless-hate-crime-report/

"Now that makes sense [?] and Australia is one of the few countries that requires flintlock muzzle loading guns to be registered if one wants to use one. Perhaps the authorities are afraid that someone might go on the rampage with one and hold off the police as he/she fires a shot every two or three minutes".

Don't be so silly Is Mise, you don't need fire any shots to hold the police off. Just a backpack with a bit of wire hanging out of it will do that for you.

In fact, with some of our assistant commissioners, just shouting BOO loudly should do.

Not convinced the politics around access to weapons is entirely about public safety. Suspect it's also about one element wanting to impose their ideas and values upon everyone else without fear.
Much change has been forced upon us in the last two decades and quite conspicuously the proponents of much of this change are also the strongest proponents of civil disarmament and reliance on the state for physical protection. All very advantageous for the would be agressor and political busybody alike. Almost looks like a protection racket.
Oddest of the proponents are the Liberal party. We're told the "age of entitlement" must end but when it comes to the most fundamental element of self reliance which is physical self defence we're told "No way, Absolutely not". We're told we must rely entirely on the state for that. Quite the contradiction.

Personally I couldn't think of anything more tedious than carrying a weapon of some sort around with me. Imagine I'd just avoid those places where that might be needed. Hard for the shopkeeper though. Or the frail and vulnerable in their homes. Our laws compel flight. That's pretty cold when it comes to someone like a mother with toddlers or the elderly. When it comes to the confines of our own homes and even our places of business why the hell should we have to run?
This is where it gets down to fundamentals.
The current firearm laws are only a side issue. They're a proven failure as a crime fighting tool and everyone knows it. The issue we should also be discussing is do we have the right to stand our ground or not. Espescially on our own property. Of course to stand our ground we must have the means to at least match an agressor. In public places is another question. What we may have and do within our own space is the issue.
Pretty confident if the question of viable self defence within own private space was put to the public the response would be strongly in favour of the right