Rants with Guns

Tonight, my son and I finished an 8 month journey to become licenced pistol shooters. We are now legally able to acquire and possess handguns. Well, I am. He's still a minor, so no possessing for him directly. Following a 2 day instruction course, we had to complete a minimum of 6 shoots where we were scrutinised on our safe handling technique with both revolvers and semi-automatic pistols. The responsibility of holding a pistol was drummed into us every time, with range safety officers assessing and critiquing every aspect of what we were doing. For the next 6 months, I'm legally allowed to acquire a maximum of 2 handguns - either an air pistol and a centrefire or rimfire; or 2 of either centrefire or rimfire; but not one of each. My club has to indicate I need them for the events I participate in before I'm allowed to acquire them. Both for the next 6 months, and beyond, the maximum calibre I can purchase is 0.357 Magnum (I believe - it has to be under 0.38 anyway without a high calibre permit); and I'm not allowed to use a holster or a suppressor without additional licensing. I can use a pistol I acquire to shoot targets at the range, and that's all. No other purpose is permitted, and I am only to transport the pistol directly between it's approved storage location in a prescribed safe; and the pistol club. If I stop at the shops and someone steals my car with the pistol in it I can say goodbye to my license.

Why do I need to buy one to shoot at the range? In a rather annoying twist, despite the fact my club has pistols I can hire, that is presently useless to me as the law prohibits me from buying ammunition unless I can show registration papers for a pistol that takes that particular ammunition. I would not at this point have purchased my own gun instead opting to use club pistols, except that it is legally difficult to participate without owning one of your own. Seems a bit counterintuitive really.

So why am I writing this? Because I wanted to contrast my ability to acquire guns with the news story yesterday of the mass shooting in Las Vegas. A man armed with a high powered, automatic assault rifle sat on a rooftop and shot the crap out of a crowd of people, killing 59 and wounding many more. In Nevada, the military grade rifles he purchased are legal to buy off the shelf, with no background checks, licensing or mandatory education required. Fully automatic rifles are illegal to sell, however after-market modifications to make semi-autos into full autos are considered to be legal. So while you can't buy an automatic off the shelf, it's legal to possess one in Nevada at least. Unlike many of the cases we see in the US, this guy was legally entitled to possess the guns he had, so the "laws won't stop illegal guns" argument doesn't apply here. More people died in that shooting than were killed by guns in Australia (excluding suicides) in the entirety of 2016, or in 2017 to date.

Australia's laws are restrictive, and awkward and in many cases poorly thought out. A probationary licence holder can't own both a centrefire and a rimfire pistol, because this one guy went on a shooting spree at his uni with that exact combination: probationary licence, one centrefire pistol, one rimfire pistol. He killed 2 people, and injured 5 more. However, had he had two centrefire pistols with him which are typically higher calibre, the damage may have been more severe. Those injuries could possibly have been deaths, or at the very least more significant. But as a result of this event, we now have a rather odd law - one that prohibits a situation that in the hands of a crazy person is arguably less dangerous than a situation it allows.

On the other hand, the US's laws allowing a laissez faire approach to military-style weapons are resulting in frequent mass shootings in a peace-time, Westernised democracy. Sure, I can point to countries with higher rates of gun crime, but none that any sane person would want to consider the benchmark for a reasonable rate of gun crime. They're countries with known corrupt governments, rampant gang activity, military control, or significant drug trade. "The US: Fewer gun-related deaths than Columbia" doesn't exactly instil confidence.

What am I yammering on about? I'm just thinking about sensible gun control. Australia needs to re-examine it's gun laws and consult with people who are experts in the subject matter about whether they're sensible laws. If allowing someone like me to purchase ammunition at the shooting range means I don't need to own my own pistol in a safe at my home in order to shoot for sport; and the goal is reduced gun ownership; maybe that law might need a rethink? Does prohibiting probationary licence holders from acquiring both a rimfire and centrefire actually achieve anything?  Or, more likely, was it just a political maneuver to be seen to be "doing something" in the wake of a tragic event? Can we make legitimate gun use less onerous while still maintaining our exceptional low gun crime rates?

For the US, I know that gun ownership is at the core of what they understand freedom to be. I disagree with that perspective, but it's a reality. That being said, I'm "free" to own and drive a car, but there's regulation around how that plays out. My car has to fit within guidelines. I need to be licenced, and my vehicle registered. In order to gain my licence, I have to demonstrate competence and understanding of the responsibility involved with operating a motor vehicle. And if I want to drive a larger, more complicated vehicle then there's further licensing and compliance associated with that. My freedoms aren't being significantly impinged upon by all of this - the freedom of others to live without fear of an incompetent me in an out of control truck running them down is simply being protected. Sure, that will still happen from time to time regardless, as will shootings. The "there will still be illegal guns" argument is true, but it's just not the whole story. Regulating gun ownership reduces gun-related deaths. If you can screen out people with known, significant mental illness through licensing and background checks; limit access to guns whose only purpose is to kill lots of people very quickly (an XM15 is not a good choice for any other purpose I'm aware of); and comprehensively educate new gun owners on safe handling; surely - surely - that would have to have a positive impact on rates of shooting deaths.

What do you think? Am I missing something important? Do you have a view on gun control and want to tell me how wrong I am? Go for it in the comments.