The purpose of owning a firearm for a mass amount of people in the USA is to have it available for protection. Owning a firearm is not the goal. The restrictions that are placed upon people is how tyrannical governments operate. The people that purchase a firearm should not be burdened with government officials coming into their homes to “inspect” their “registered” firearms. The mass media has an agenda. Every mass shooter that is taken out by a good guy with a gun is hidden from the world. You never see a headline story about when a bad guy with a firearm is taken out by a citizen that is lawfully carrying a weapon. My understanding of Australia is that yes you can own firearms BUT the ownership comes with fees, inspections and restrictions while the gun is owned. In a nutshell if you are “allowed” to own a gun but you have regulations on that ownership you may as well not own the gun and because you are restricted from using it in a meaningful way.
What comes to mind a few years back when I was staying in Sydney. A knife wielding guy murdered a woman and was out on the street after he killed the woman. He had to be subdued by a couple Brits who I think used a chair! At the time no one had a gun to lay the murderer down.
Prayers for the victims and their families in this senseless murder of these people.
Basically correct. Though they are less onerous than some people outside Australia seem to have been lead to believe.
In a nutshell if you are “allowed” to own a gun but you have regulations on that ownership you may as well not own the gun and because you are restricted from using it in a meaningful way.
No. I can't agree with that at all. But it is a little complicated to explain why.
There is significant difference here between what rules say, and how they are enforced. Most of the time, a degree of common sense is applied to any rules and regulations in Australia.
When I've purchased a new firearm (which admittedly is something I don't do often), I've never had any difficulties at all doing so. The 'local firearms officer' (who, in my case, is a Senior Sergeant at a local police station) could, certainly, if he chose to do so, have made it complicated and difficult for me - he has the legal power to do so - but he doesn't. Why? Because he can look at me, and immediately tell I'm a person who is not likely to use a firearm for any illegitimate purpose. I'm a retired naval officer which helps a bit, but it's also a matter of how I present myself in general, as a respectable citizen.
Now, if a 19 year-old kid, wearing the type of clothing associated with the 'eshay-' pseudo gang culture we have here, walks into the station to try and get a permit to acquire a gun... I expect the Senior Sergeant is going to use every single rule he has at his disposal to make sure that kid isn't looking to break the law. And, honestly, I'm entirely comfortable with him having those rules at his disposal to fully check things out. In the end, if the kid hasn't got a criminal record, and gives reasonable answers to the Senior Sergeant as to why they want the permit to acquire, the Senior Sergeant will issue that permit - and should do so - but I've honestly no issues with the fact it takes that kid a little longer and a bit more scrutiny to get it.
Same with inspections. I had my gun storage inspected once when the requirement to do so first came in. It's never been checked since even though legally they could inspect it any time. Common sense is applied.
Would I prefer some of the rules didn't exist? Sure. I think some of them are a waste of time, and some of them could be abused if somebody wanted to abuse them. But, quite honestly, I don't feel unreasonably restricted.
If our laws were as extreme as I've seen some in the US, incorrectly claim from time to time, yes, I'd feel restricted. But they're not that extreme.