Given they were a conservative one to boot, they certainly did. It caused splits within their party, but Howard held firm. For mine, outside the GST it was probably the only good policy his government introduced.
The laws put in after Port Arthur have served us very well. The flaws are identified, they’re within screening for citizenship and issuing licences to non citizens. Change or strengthen those and this doesn’t occur. The weapons they used are legal and reasonable under our laws.
That said, as someone who used to own firearms and spent several years in the bush, very few people have a need for more than a few firearms and it should not be difficult at all for us to create caveats within laws for the small few that do. That includes competitive sports shooters who may need a few. If someone possesses over 100 of them though, you’d think they’d be running a gun museum. Most farmers and professional shooters I’ve met generally rely on two or three weapons. They are necessary, but most purposes on farms or grazing properties are suited by a small and large bore rifle (often a compromise between the two, such as a .223) and a single barrel shotgun. Roo shooters like high quality, flat shooting bolt action rifles with floating barrels. Rarely are semi autos needed, unless it’s feral animal hunting from choppers or rabbit shooting and the caveats for this already exist.
If anyone claims they need more than three, they’re probably not being genuine. For most people in an urban setting it’s hard to justify ownership of one let alone more.
Point is yeah, the governments probably want to be a bit careful here. A lot was already given up and the less window Hanson and her shitcunts are given the better. This failed at the point of visa and licensing and had we had semi autos, which we don’t, in the mix it’d have been a lot worse.
Given they were a conservative one to boot, they certainly did. It caused splits within their party, but Howard held firm. For mine, outside the GST it was probably the only good policy his government introduced.
The laws put in after Port Arthur have served us very well. The flaws are identified, they’re within screening for citizenship and issuing licences to non citizens. Change or strengthen those and this doesn’t occur. The weapons they used are legal and reasonable under our laws.
That said, as someone who used to own firearms and spent several years in the bush, very few people have a need for more than a few firearms and it should not be difficult at all for us to create caveats within laws for the small few that do. That includes competitive sports shooters who may need a few. If someone possesses over 100 of them though, you’d think they’d be running a gun museum. Most farmers and professional shooters I’ve met generally rely on two or three weapons. They are necessary, but most purposes on farms or grazing properties are suited by a small and large bore rifle (often a compromise between the two, such as a .223) and a single barrel shotgun. Roo shooters like high quality, flat shooting bolt action rifles with floating barrels. Rarely are semi autos needed, unless it’s feral animal hunting from choppers or rabbit shooting and the caveats for this already exist.
If anyone claims they need more than three, they’re probably not being genuine. For most people in an urban setting it’s hard to justify ownership of one let alone more.
Point is yeah, the governments probably want to be a bit careful here. A lot was already given up and the less window Hanson and her shitcunts are given the better. This failed at the point of visa and licensing and had we had semi autos, which we don’t, in the mix it’d have been a lot worse.