Alphecca

Unfortunately in Britain, giving self defence as "good reason" will result in your firarms certificate either being withdrawn or refused.

We have to rely on a state monopoly for our safety and protection against the well armed drug dealers, muggers and gangsters.

It's been like that since 1947, so anyone tryng to blame the Labour party for imposing it, also has to blame the Tories for not removing it.

Well done Aussies, you've left your sheep alone for long enough to do organise something good.

Actually Keith, its been that way since 1920.

Licenses for "owning" firearms were first required in jolly old England in 1920. Handguns and rifles. Shotguns in 1967.

Then again, as an American I've never been an anglophile. What with two wars you Brits tried to screw us.

Screw you to.

well, well, well, out comes a biggot.

yes, the licensing system did come in in 1921 (it was sold as a means to prevent armed robbery, but was planned as a means to prevent Bolshevik revolution).Self defence was accepted as "good reason" up to 1947, then the inevitable logic of a GOVT trying to control all aspects of life finally caught up with us.

It does

as for the wars, go read some history before you comment.

As for the mindset of national identity before all else, ever bothered to travel beyond your home town? let alone take a look into another country and get to know the people?

Who knows? it might shatter a few inherited prejudices and holywood myths...

I point out the mistakes made in Britain so that some can recognise the same landmarks and turn around before following the same slippery path to the slope of no return.

within a society, it is very difficult to see the idiosyncracies that those outside it see, and unless a revolution has occurred in the very recent past, forcing the previously accepted history culture and prejudices to be re-assessed, the idiosyncracies just go on growing as everyday accepted and un noticed facts of life.

On independence, the US re assessed its' own and British history - up to the mid 18th century.

some additional re-assessment has taken place with immigrants and refugees bringing their own take, for example, Potato Fammine, Highland clearances, Irish war of independance.

Of course they also bring their own prejudices, that are no longer challenged or tested against reality, so the build up of a none critical "Mythos" continues.

Short of revolution, the only way to find out is to get out and find out for yourself.

So,

Anonymous,

Once you have sobered up, try a little bit of travel.

-it might just broaden your closed little mind.

"somehow I missed the 'Buy an Amnesty International Badge Day' here in the U.S."

Too bad; I hear they make great target centers.

As one of the founders of the group sponsoring Buy-A-Gun Day in Australia, I thanks you for your notice!

Actually, we can't buy a gun for self defense at all. That was one of the 'reforms' of 1996.

We can have them for target shooting, and hunting, and farming work, and collecting.

And in many cases, Australians buy guns to 'get back at' the hate-filled attitudes of the political class.

I was one of those who went out and got a firearms licence after the 1996 "buyback". We're not allowed to own a gun for self defence, though, and there are strict "safe storage" requirements, plus "audits" by the police, in effect, warrantless searches. And I think the situation will gradually get worse, as the laws are ratcheted up every few years, and the police become stricter in their enforcement.

I have no doubt that the political aim is banning of civilian gun ownership. Our Prime Minister, John Howard, is on record as saying he believes guns are evil, and cannot see why anyone would want one.

Well, I dispute that the safe storage inspections are 'warrantless searches'. We are in touch via discussion forums with a lot of shooters. In general the inspections are 'by appointment', and limited to inspecting safe storage and verifying registration details.

A problem though, is that they don't need a warrant anymore - warrantless searches are legal 'where the police have reason to believe there may be firearms'. That means all licensed owners lost their protection from warrantless searches.

Despite all their extra powers, the police have NOT generally used them, though there have been small instances of pettiness. I think this is the single strongest evidence against a paranoid view of the reason behind our excessive laws.

Chris, although in the past police have exercised common sense, in South Australia there is a "Firearms Legislative Reform Project" currently being run by the police. They are calling for submissions from interested parties. The aim of the project is to "ensure the legislation reflects the contemporary approach to firearms control". No mention of evidence based legislation.

The General Firearms Amnesty has moved into Phase II. "Chief Inspector Langmead, Officer in Charge, Firearms Branch, says police now have a
second investigation team and a new Intelligence Analyst within the Branch.
“Between July and September this year, Firearms Branch has conducted 154 random audits, found 43 people non compliant and seized 78 firearms. If you own a firearm you will be visited by police at some stage and owners who have unregistered firearms, are unlicensed or have non compliant storage, will face the consequences.” (Quote from SAPOL media release, "Firearms Amnesty Result", 1/11/06).

Also, over the last couple of years, police follow up of licence renewals has become more intrusive, changing from repeated reminders being posted out, to late evening phone calls, to a stern letter threatening legal action if the licence renewal is delayed. (I wasn't late last year, I can tell you!).

I have no doubt that firearms regulations are being more rigorously enforced. Why? It can only be to make firearms ownership more difficult.