Nah, the truthfull answer is, 'I am a Member of the SSAA.' That is all I need to say (according to the SSAA the equivalent of your NRA, but it is not a radical organisation.)
you don't deserve any freedoms or liberties if you are so willing to just give it all away at the whims of an authoritarian government
That has never been in dispute. One cannot get a gun for the sole reason of 'home or self defence.' One sure can use it in that fashion/for that purpose if you have otherwise legally acquired it, and probably even if you have not legally acquired it. If my use of the gun was found to be justified, I could still be convicted of illegally possessing the gun if I did not have a Licence to have it. Dunno if I have explained that clearly. Take #2. Say I possess a gun without a Licence and I use it justifiably in self defence. That I had it illegally does not destroy or even diminish my right to claim self defence to a murder or similar charge. The conseqeunce would be a conviction for possessing a gun illegally.
Nah. I can say I fully complied with the Law. Fully. Bushey: Oi, Law, I want a .410. Law: Okay, so which of these categories do you fit into......"Blah blah blah blah...recreational hunting...blah blah blah." Bushey: Recreational hunting. Law: Yeah, pull the other one Bushey. How do we know you are interested in that? Bushey: Oh, I have been a Member of the SSAA for some years and I still am a Member. 'Ere's me Membership Card. Law: Fair enough. Have you attended the safety course. Bushey: Sure, 'ere's me ticket to say I have. Law: Okay Bushey. One last question. If your life were threatened, would you use the .410? Bushey: Bloody oath I would, without any hesitation. Law: Carry on Bushey. Enjoy.
The difference is that you stated that you got the gun for self defense, which is not a legal basis for owning or possessing a firearm in your country. Of course, no matter what reason you acquired a gun, one assumes if a legitimate self defense issue comes up, better "jury by 12 than carried by 6." But that's a separate issue for the reason that you actually got your gun, which required a lack of candor with your own government. This isn't just an Australian thing. The hypocrisy you are displaying is typical among American gun control activists as well who oppose gun ownership for everyone except themselves because of reasons.
Except there is no hypocrisy on my part. The Law allows me to have the .420 for recreational hunting purposes. How does one prove it. By being a Member of the SSAA. Surely you do not believe for one second, the Law is naive enough to believe that the sole reason one gets a gun is to go recreational shooting. I am not required to keep a log on when I go shooting recreationally, that is proven by the SSAA Membership. End of story.
A .410 is barely sufficient for possums and other vermin. Its not going to reliably stop a motivated human. Five shots? Don't you think that's a somewhat high capacity? Why, wouldn't you and your neighbors all be much safer if it was a break action single barrel? And what constitutes such a genuine threat to your welfare?
You already directed us to it and were pointed to the specific language. Don't be coy dear. You gave your genuine reason, self defense. And that's a perfectly rational reason, but your nation and laws do not recognize it as such and your admissions here show you misled the government as to your GENUINE reason. Instead you gave a disingenuous reason so you could acquire the arm for your truly intended use for it as expressed "I am about to legally acquire a .410 lever action shotgun primarily for defence at home. Simple to do. And legal. "
No, that is what you would say and what would be truthful if that was your actual reason. But you gave us your actual reason and it was defense in the home, not recreational shooting.
Most, particularly the sort that will be pulling a home invasion. If you don't do sufficient damage you're not stopping them immediately, and if you don't catch them in the head with that .410 or directly in the heart, you're not going to stop them immediately. They'll keep coming while their adrenaline is pumping. Later they'll fall down and bleed and moan everywhere, but in the moment they're coming at you and most only need to be in arms length to do serious damage with say a knife or club. IDK about you, but while I can survive a giant slash to the arm or missing a finger or getting a severed tendon, I'd really prefer not to and I certainly don't want to risk getting my throat cut or a knife in the face. Dude basically is relying on a taurus judge with a long barrel, its silly. The height of fuddery.
You have research supporting this claim or just twaddle from NRA funded stories spread by sympathetic journalists? https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/3/26/how-to-sell-a-massacre-nras-playbook-revealed
The NRA are a bunch of low rent guncontrol supporting idiots. I can't believe you're not in to them they've supported all the gun control the US has. I do not subscribe to any talking points from the NRA, they are opposed to my policy aims. https://www.police1.com/patrol-issu...cally-legally-or-tactically-6bOdYvNUEECtIWRI/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopping_power < Plenty of linked scientific sources there. .410 shot is not going to stop a person reliably like a 9mm hollow point will. https://www.indystar.com/story/news...icer-involved-shooting-south-side/5625984001/ here's a nice anecdote about a man shot multiple times by officers who would've been using either 12 gauge slugs, hollow point pistol or rifle ammunition (as that is what is issued to police in the states, hollowpoints) who was advancing on them when being plugged, who isn't even dead right now. You can do further basic research on how poking a hole in someone does not immediately stop or kill them for yourself.
So you claim the law knows that "hunting purposes" is just a *wink*wink excuse for the real reason. Well I'll just chock that up to Australian law being different from American law.
