Martin William Smith wrote:

[...]
>I don't see why strict gun control implies a police state.  I'd like
>to hear your argument.  In any case, I don't advocate a police state.
>What do you mean by police state?

A police state is a state that rules over the people by brute force, rather
than with the consent of the governed. Issodhos is perhaps overstating the
danger of gun control in leading to a police state, but gun control is
certainly a necessary pre-condition for an effective police state. Can't
have the plebs shooting back now, can we?

Your idea of limiting the number of guns a person can own, before they must
be stored in a central armoury, would be rather a nuisance (and probably
quite a financial burden) to many gun owners though.

Guns are just tools, you need different tools for different jobs. The
absurdly restrictive gun laws recently enacted here in Australia illustrate
that rules invented to satisfy the Disneyesque world-view of the urban
middle class are a severe nuisance to the people who actually use guns.

Friends of mine who are passionate hunters are really frustrated by these
laws. One bloke had to hand in most of his firearms (pump-action shotguns)
and make do with outdated 19th century breech-loading weapons, and even
then the authorities question his need for more than one or two of these.
The poor bastard now has to come and borrow my shotgun most weekends, for
other shooters he takes along with his shooting party. He has no spare guns
for emergencies. The 2-shot guns he does have are inadequate for the type
of shooting he like (Roo shooting in thick scrub with a pack of hounds).

I also have a relative who is a collector, with some nice old 19th century
breech-loaders and old octagonal barrel lever-action rifles. The idea of
mutilating them as required by law so appalled him that he didn't register
any of his weapons. He certainly wouldn't have been in the slightest bit
interested in locking them away in an armoury where he wouldn't even get to
see them.

That may be OK for "investors". But I don't really think it would be too
good in the long-run, the investment would depreciate pretty damn quick if
you effectively killed the market for collectable firearms by not letting
people see their collection or show it off.

I just wish the urban middle-class would mind their own business. I agree
with resticting offensive weapons like concealable pistols and assault
rifles. But the trouble with you lot is you don't know the difference
between offensive and hunting weapons and target weapons and collectables.
These are all completely different kettles of fish.

Only wankers own offensive weapons in my experience. Usually, but not
always, city wankers. And psychopaths of course. Taking these away from
people is fair enough, but because most of the urban middle class in
Australia doesn't understand the difference and won't listen to anyone who
knows, they finished up going way over the top with gun law reform here.

Next thing you know we have the likes of Pauline Hanson, a bigoted
ignoramus, getting huge support from rural Australians. Wonder why?

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas.