Buying my first gun.

[WolfThomas]

is bordered with a country that is ran by criminals

Canada isn't that bad...

However for home defense a lever action might not be a bad idea, lever actions can be manufactured to fire fire pistol cartridges such as .38, .357, and .44 magnum. But then again, I'm not sure if that would be legal in Australia without extensive papers. They're considered a rifle, but they fire pistol cartridges, and judging by the quoted comment, anything above .38 seems to be a no-no for most people.

Ironically enough there's no restrictions on levergun calibres you can get a .44 magnum with no problem. I have heard anecdotal stories about people owning an unregistered pistol and a registered levergun and just using the latter as an excuse for buying buying the ammunition (you can buy any ammunition with a CAT A+B, but you'd likely get some raised eyebrows buying pistol ammunition).

 

[direkiller]

Get a water gun, the only type of gun worth getting. Seriously, why on Earth do you want a gun?

hmmm, lets see, protection because every single country that has outlawed or heavily restricted guns has seen an increase in violent crime while US cities are shown to have less crime when gun bans are lifted?
or because its say....pfft....a fucking gun hobby?

You're kidding right?? Despite the fact that Australia has such stringent gun laws, we also have some of the lowest gun violence. Go figure.

The US on the other has some of the highest. Who'd a thunk it??

comparing apples to OJ

he is talking about overall crime rates
you are talking about violence involving guns
one can go up while the outer goes down

(I don't care eater way I just hate when people use misleading statistics)

 

[TotalerKrieger]

I would recommend a FN Browning High Power in 9mm. Standard issue in most Commonwealth nations since the end of WW2, an excellent firearm. A Russian TT-33 (7.62x25 Tokarev) is also a good choice as it is cheap, historical and there is quite a bit of cheap surplus ammunition available (here in Canada there is quite a bit anyways).

For rifles that might be particularily interesting to an Australian, I'd go for a Lithgow made Lee-Enfield No.1 Mk.3 (.303 British). The ANZACs used this rifle throughout WW1, WW2, Korea and into Vietnam, they are of top quality. A company called Australian International Arms also makes a modernized Lee Enfield chambered in 7.62x51 or 7.62x39. Never handled one but they are popular here in Canada.

I own a Longbranch Lee-Enfield No.4 Mk.1, a Russian SVT-40 w/ reproduction sniper scope, a Mosin Nagant M44 Carbine and a Belgian FN-49. All are WW2 dated except the FN. I take them to the range a bit, but I hope to keep them in great condition and eventually pass them on to a future generation (hopefully not to be tossed into a smelter...).

OT:
Speaking as an ardent socialist, I am so tired of liberals, left-wingers and pacifists spouting off such misinformed, prejudiced nonsense against firearms. Please actually look into the realities of the shooting sports as well as legal firearm ownership in general before condemning an entire way of life found in many communities. These remarks by George Orwell capture my position on firearms ownership:

?That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.?

"Thus, for example, tanks, battleships and bombing planes are inherently tyrannical weapons, while rifles, muskets, long-bows, and hand-grenades are inherently democratic weapons. A complex weapon makes the strong stronger, while a simple weapon ? so long as there is no answer to it ? gives claws to the weak."

 

[Jegsimmons]

is bordered with a country that is ran by criminals

Canada isn't that bad...

HA!!!!! that's funny, your funny.

 

[LittleJoeRambler]

I'd recommend a .22 for starters. Someone already mentioned cheaper ammo, lower recoil and less noise, and I'd like to second (or third or whatever) that opinion.

I own a Taurus .45 1911, and I love it so much. But the ammo is prohibitively expensive, even in the States. I'd start with a .22 simply for the cheap ammo: it'll let you get hours and hours of practice in without blowing all your money, and .22 handguns tend to be a little cheaper than 9mm or .38 specials too, so there'd probably be less initial cost. Once you feel comfortable with handling, using and (most importantly) maintaining a handgun, move up to bigger calibers.

 

[Malyc]

my first pistol was a classic colt detective special .38 snubnose... got it on my 8th birthday and still have it

Are you kidding me...

why? teaching firearm safety from an early age is much better than trying to teach it to an adult... I learned firearm safety and handling starting when I was 5... under supervision of course... I mean it's not like I turned 8, had never held a gun before and they just handed me a loaded pistol and said "go outside and play"

I agree totally. I grew up around guns, and was taught a healthy respect for them at an early age. Started shooting when i was about... 9 or 10, i think, got my first shotgun when i turned 14, bought my first rifle at 17 and my first handgun at 21. Still have every gun I've ever owned, as well.

 

[Thaluikhain]

really now? didnt the murder rate actually rise after the gun ban when the gov. spent 500 million dollars to destroy guns?

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

Nope, that's not true. Er, you'll note that that article even says the murder rate decreased.

Various right wing types (you'll note the home page of that site includes recommendations from Newt Gingrich and Fox Business) love to claim that Australia is an example of what would happen to the US if the socialists take away their guns or whatever, and aren't too worried about the facts involved.

For one thing, Australia isn't a smaller version of the US, it didn't have a gun culture to speak of even before the government put new restrictions on them. Also, being smaller, it's easier for things to throw the figures out. The murder rate of Tasmania spiked massively (I think it went up somehting like 8 fold) during the year of the Port Arthur massacre, as it's a very lightly populated state and 35 people were murdered in one day.

That's assuming they bother to pick and choose their facts and figures rather than flat out lying. The NRA ran a campaign saying all Australians have to live in armoured bunker types houses due to gun controls a few years back that pissed any number of people off.

If they want to argue that they have a right to own guns, fine, facts and figures aren't really relevant. If they are going to fiddle witht he true or make things up, they can fuck right off.

 

[ElPatron]

I target shoot my handguns, but I also keep a mag loaded with self defense rounds in the gun vault with them. This is more of a "Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it" type of thing, as I hope I don't ever have to use that precaution.

The OP is in Australia.

If I had a the choice between a legal SD gun and target pistol of a larger caliber:

I would definitely use the target pistol for self-defense because I know I could justify it. I would come up with a convincing reason to grab a target pistol for SD - which isn't supposed to be a legal alternative - and not have to go to jail because our judges are somewhat reasonable.

If he kills someone in self defense with a gun in Australia I fear that the populace will cry for the imprisonment of "that dangerous gun-tooting psychopath".

And being a target shooting pistol I really doubt his case would hold up in court.

 

[StBishop]

what do you guys think?

do any of you own any firearms or even go shooting yourselves?

Being from Australia (Victoria) I'd suggest getting a long arms license first, it's a CAT A+B in Victoria, not sure in NSW, it's far more easier to obtain and can be a useful stepping stone in moving to your handgun license, meeting guys at ranges who know what you'll need to do, firearm handling practice etc. Plus they're good fun too.

Not sure in NSW, but in Victoria, there's quite an arduous process to get a handgun, involves at least six months of pre-shoots and stuff, then you usually have to get a .22 handgun before you can move on to a larger calibre.

The funny part is more people have been killed by .22s than any other caliber.

Don't worry, I won't tell Australia

It's probably due to availability. Also, that is a pretty broad statement to make without any qualifiers. The way it's stated you're saying that no other calibre in any and all situations globally (including wars etc.) in all of history has killed as many people.

It'd be hard to verify.

Regardless, I'm here to say that I'm shocked at how cheap guns are in Australia.
It's really very cheap.

my first pistol was a classic colt detective special .38 snubnose... got it on my 8th birthday and still have it

Are you kidding me...

why? teaching firearm safety from an early age is much better than trying to teach it to an adult... I learned firearm safety and handling starting when I was 5... under supervision of course... I mean it's not like I turned 8, had never held a gun before and they just handed me a loaded pistol and said "go outside and play"

In Australia where it's hard to get a gun, it could be argued that introducing a child to a gun is a bad idea.

I understand that culturally the States is very different to over here. But outside of country towns where people use guns to kill pigs, most people down own, like, or have anything but disdain for guns.

I know plenty of people that hate them with a passion and think they're horrible, and I know about 5 people who own guns.
I'm completely excluding children because I'm unsure how most of the children I know feel about guns and, well, they're children.

Be a real gentleman and buy a sword, that way you can challenge people to duals over matters of honour, and declare that the duel is to first blood. Much more civilized that way.

Or debate with words, I dunno, seems logical as our society seems to have moved beyond the idea of dueling.

I mean sure, people still brawl, but they're not the sort of people who would be adverse to bringing a gun to a sword fight.

Having a gun is about more than dueling, or being a gentleman. I mean I could just as easily tell you to get rid of your computer and use a type writer and snail mail. It's silly.

 

[StBishop]

Damn, double post.

 

[Rheinmetall]

in my opinion one should stay away from real guns in their everyday life as much as possible. Anything can happen.

What?

Someone who has done military service actually believes firearms have a will of their own?

Whoa, you guys shouldn't issue firearms to the armed forces. "Anything can happen", after all.

Maybe I didn't express myself correctly; when I say anything can happen, I'm afraid of what a man can do with a weapon in his hand, not the gun itself.

 

[Rheinmetall]

in my opinion one should stay away from real guns in their everyday life as much as possible. Anything can happen.

What?

Someone who has done military service actually believes firearms have a will of their own?

Whoa, you guys shouldn't issue firearms to the armed forces. "Anything can happen", after all.

Maybe I didn't express myself correctly; when I say anything can happen, I'm afraid of what a man can do with a weapon in his hand, not the gun itself.

hate to break it to you but I can kill you just as easy without a gun as with one... not to mention you come into contact with dozens of items in your everyday life that are just as deadly as guns if not more so the only difference is that killing isn't their primary purpose... cars kill more people a year in most countries than guns so I guess we should all avoid them to... oh oh and electricity cause electric fires and electrocution kill more people a year than guns too... cause ya know anything can happen

Okay, you have a point. It sounds logical.
But let me ask you one thing: Imagine this extreme scenario: If most people do carry a gun, with the same analogy that people drive cars, wouldn't this make you worried? Would you really trust half of the population of a city that they will make reasonable use of their guns? And I'm not talking about madmen, but ordinary people who would face ordinary situations in their lives, but with a gun in their pocket. Or let me put it with another way. In a quarell we have two men yelling, pushing eachother and generally be violent. In the same quarell if one of these two parties, or both of them, had a gun with them, then wouldn't this raise dramatically the chances of something really bad to happen?

 

[senordesol]

Okay, you have a point. It sounds logical.
But let me ask you one thing: Imagine this extreme scenario: If most people do carry a gun, with the same analogy that people drive cars, wouldn't this make you worried? Would you really trust half of the population of a city that they will make reasonable use of their guns? And I'm not talking about madmen, but ordinary people who would face ordinary situations in their lives, but with a gun in their pocket. Or let me put it with another way. In a quarell we have two men yelling, pushing eachother and generally be violent. In the same quarell if one of these two parties, or both of them, had a gun with them, then wouldn't this raise dramatically the chances of something really bad to happen?

If they both had a gun -and knew it- the quarrel would probably simmer down quickly. M.A.D. and all that.

 

[ElPatron]

Maybe I didn't express myself correctly; when I say anything can happen, I'm afraid of what a man can do with a weapon in his hand, not the gun itself.

I know. That is why I replied in two ways.

The second one was about not trusting others.

I'll make my opinion clear. If I can't trust everyone else with guns, I can't trust my own government to have guns.

I live in Portugal. We are pretty much retarded when it comes to guns. We have a majority of responsible citizens that is *drowned* by a minority of criminals and irresponsible gun owners.

So, I can't trust my fellow citizens to bear arms. Therefore I don't trust governmental forces. The police officers rarely get to train with firearms. We had cases of weapons stolen from the Marines.

My point is: if you can't trust citizens to have weapons, you can't trust the conscription system anyway. Or the regular military, for that matter.

But everyday we trust other humans to drive cars, handle knives, fly planes, deal with nuclear energy, etc etc etc.

I think it's scarier that we make our driver's licenses too easy so that at least 90% of the population can pass them than X out of 100 habitants owning guns.

But let me ask you one thing: Imagine this extreme scenario: If most people do carry a gun, with the same analogy that people drive cars, wouldn't this make you worried? Would you really trust half of the population of a city that they will make reasonable use of their guns?

Wikipedia tiem:

Using publicly available media reports, the Violence Policy Center claims that from May 2007 through the end of 2009, concealed carry permit holders in the U.S. have killed at least 117 individuals, including 9 law enforcement officers (excluding cases where individuals were acquitted, but including pending cases). There were about 25,000 murders by firearm that period,[96][97] meaning that concealed carry permit holders committed less than 1% of the murders by firearm. Furthermore, a large number of the victims were killed in extended suicides, most of which took place in the home of the shooter, where arms can be possessed without special permits.[98]

In Australia where it's hard to get a gun, it could be argued that introducing a child to a gun is a bad idea.

I understand that culturally the States is very different to over here.

Oh, my. Not this again.

I already mentioned that in the UK kids as young as 10 get shotgun permits. Mostly because they are living in a farm and require a permit so that they can have training.

It's not "US this or US that".

In fact, if you go to a city in the US and ask around, most people will tell you that only criminals and cops need guns. Or that evil baby killing assault weapons should be banned.

 

[Malyc]

Oh, my. Not this again.

I already mentioned that in the UK kids as young as 10 get shotgun permits. Mostly because they are living in a farm and require a permit so that they can have training.

It's not "US this or US that".

In fact, if you go to a city in the US and ask around, most people will tell you that only criminals and cops need guns. Or that evil baby killing assault weapons should be banned.

Never actually seen an "assault weapon" (Fuck you, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement act, you make people everywhere think of semi auto sporting rifles as military grade weapons of mass destruction) kill a baby. Not to mention that said weapons are less powerful than the standard hunting rifle that is far easier to obtain, but doesn't look as cool.

 

[ElPatron]

Never actually seen an "assault weapon" (Fuck you, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement act, you make people everywhere think of semi auto sporting rifles as military grade weapons of mass destruction) kill a baby. Not to mention that said weapons are less powerful than the standard hunting rifle that is far easier to obtain, but doesn't look as cool.

Not that true. The gas bleeding trough the port in the barrel hardly decreases pressure.
Assuming a 20"bbl AR15 and a 20"bbl bolt action rifle the velocities are going to be nearly identical.

If you want cool "evil looking" weapons, I've seen a brit obtaining a Ruger 10/22 and he ordered an Archangel modification kit without it being seized or anything.

 

[Malyc]

Never actually seen an "assault weapon" (Fuck you, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement act, you make people everywhere think of semi auto sporting rifles as military grade weapons of mass destruction) kill a baby. Not to mention that said weapons are less powerful than the standard hunting rifle that is far easier to obtain, but doesn't look as cool.

Not that true. The gas bleeding trough the port in the barrel hardly decreases pressure.
Assuming a 20"bbl AR15 and a 20"bbl bolt action rifle the velocities are going to be nearly identical.

If you want cool "evil looking" weapons, I've seen a brit obtaining a Ruger 10/22 and he ordered an Archangel modification kit without it being seized or anything.

When I said the tactical guns like the AR-15 were weaker, I was referring to them being mostly chambered in .223 or .308, whereas hunting rifles are commonly found all the way up to .300 Win Mag in semi-auto configurations. Now, if we were comparing two rifles that WERE chambered in .223 or .308, I'd agree that there would be no noticeable difference between the two, other than maybe a reduced recoil in the AR type, as they are usually slightly heavier than a hunting rifle.

The Archangel kit for the 10/22 is badass... If it wasn't as expensive as the gun itself, I'd think about getting it for mine.