G'day HASBEEN...

Now you're on the money there HASBEEN ! Finally you've got it ! All one needs to do (if an Assistant Commissioner) is say Boo 'with conviction', and they'll all give up ?

Concerning the actual Drafting of the F/A Regulations (part of the Act). back when all the laws were tightened post Port Arthur - Those with the responsibility of Drafting, sought advice on the Definition section, broadly speaking they concluded '...anything capable of discharging a missile...' was considered an integral part of that definition of a firearm, thus capturing almost everything, including low powered air rifles, nail guns, stunning guns used in abattoirs, together with poor IS MISE'S replica 20g 'Barnett' Trade Gun obviously ?

The people who Drafted everything are qualified lawyers (solicitors barristers, those of whom were most skilled in admin. law). Specific knowledge of F/A's per se, was not a requirement. Drafting legal material, legislation Admin. Docs., and other admin law matters were essentially what was required ! If necessary, they sought advice from experts (Military, police etc.), were given Drafting Instructions, in order to complete their tasks.

Consequently, many minor mistakes were made during the initial Drafting phase, and were subsequently rectified as they occurred ? Over time, several other more intractable and persistent problems, have remained unaltered , and as they say, too difficult and costly to amend and rectify, until such time as it becomes absolutely necessary ?

Basically that's how it all came together as they say ? Generally speaking, the main criticism was generally apportioned to the ridiculous 'speed' in which these 'Legal Drafter's' had to complete their jobs ? Governments were all petrified that a 'copy cat' event could occur, after Port Arthur ? Therefore this much tighter legislation was needed to hit the streets 'post haste' as it were ? So there we are ?

Jamo
I wouldn't buy a gun either, I've no use for one, it's just that in a 92% White society there's no harm in people keeping them or carrying them in public if they really want to as long as they can pass all the background checks and licensing tests.

O Sung Wu,

I have it on good authority [from one who was there] that muzzle loading guns were to be excluded but the NSW Minister of the time, asked
"What are muzzle loaders?"
"What Davy Crockett had".
"He killed plenty of Indians" said the Minister "register them"

On such chance were some of the laws based.

One law was later changed because the then Commissioner of Police, Peter Ryan, didn't like it as it was not as restrictive as English law; when asked why he wasn't pushing for other firearm laws to be brought into line with the more lenient English laws he ignored the question.
Fortunately for NSW, the Government finally realized that he was a clown and paid his contract out and sent him home.

We're not far apart Jay.

I already own longarms. Have since I was a teenager. At first for hunting then target shooting but now mostly just for on farm vermin control.
Never had an interest in handguns. First used one in the army reserve and again a few times at the club but was never impressed by them. Underpowered things that're hard to hit anything with and being short are too damned easy to unwittingly point in a dangerous direction.
Takes a switched on person properly trained to handle them safely.
I reckon carting one about would just be a worry.

Agree with you the only issue should be background check. Can't see any purpose for more than that. A safe handling course would be a plus.
Indeed I fail to see any real reason for firearms licences as we currently have them. IMO if we have a firearms registry that can serve as the licence system. Licence the firearm and don't bother with the personal firearms licence. It's only duplication. If a firearm's registered to your name the liability rests with you.
That's how we could easily do away with the useless components of the current F/A laws and retain the only useful part that keeps someone from buying them legitimately and onselling to a blackmarket. All the rest of it is pointless.

But I see that as a side issue to what David's raising. He's on about the right to posess self defence weapons of any type. The current situation creates a huge imbalance that makes the good vulnerable.
And especially in your own home or place of business it's just wrong that we can't posess a ready means to repel an assailant.

Hi Is Mise, it looks like Rhosty is Missing in Action, so I would like to address your point.

England once had the lowest homicide rate ever recorded in the industrial world between 1900 and 1970 (0.5 per 1000,000), even though it was perfectly legal in 1920 to own a handgun, provided you bought a tax stamp from the post office. England tightened up it's gun laws in the 1930's not because of any crime rise, but because the British government feared a communist revolution.

England was considered such a safe society, that much to the amazement of governments worldwide, English police alone did not carry handguns. Even English criminals had been conditioned by their culture to regard the use of handguns as the weapons of "nutters". A "gentleman's agreement" with English police limited English professional criminal violence to the criminal's traditional "cosh" and the police's traditional baton.

This began to change with the liberalisation of English censorship laws in the late 60's, with the introduction of movies glorifying drug abuse, youth criminal gangs, personal violence, revenge, massacre behaviour, and the violent criminal lifestyle. Extremely violent criminals like the "Kray" brothers became media celebrities.

British police now admit that despite a total ban on handguns in all of Britain, gun violence is out of control. Manchester has been renamed "Gunchester" in the British media owing to the number of shootings involving mainly imported ethnic gang members. The police in Latvia and Estonia claimed that their countries were virtually "crime free" as all of their violent criminal had immigrated to Britain for the richer pickings.

Chief Inspector Colin Grenwood was quoted in the media as saying...

"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is drawn to the rather statling conclusion, that the use of firearms in crime was much less than when there were no restrictions of any sort. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, rather perversely, with far greater use of this type of weapon than ever before."

I think we need to make a distinction between hand guns (pistols) that have short barrel, a rifle has a long barrel (unless sawn off) and a shot gun that normally has a long barrel (again unless sawn off)

A large percentage of the Accidental shootings in the US seem to be related to the possession of hand guns (pistols)

The Rifles used in the mass shootings in the US, seem to be more the military automatic calibre.

Shotguns are only good for close range, at 100 metres the pellets might sting a bit. (factors include the choke and shot (pellet size). Shot guns can do horrendous damage at close range.