Why the Australian Medical Association got it wrong

The recent statements by the Australian Medical Association raise a number of questions regarding our gun laws, which you might not know the answers to.

Here are some:

That’s required now. You cannot own a firearm unless you can satisfy the police that you have a legitimate reason which you can prove, such as hunting and target shooting.

Yes, quite a few.  They include surgeons, doctors and nurses.

Shooters who breach gun laws usually do lose their licences and can also do so for a number of reasons.  This includes where the Chief Commissioner simply considers someone to no longer be a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

Yes, it’s been that way for many years.  Many shooters exceed the minimum requirements because either their collection is valuable, or they keep other items such as passports in their safes.

No. Only 3 percent of firearms used in crimes come from a legal source, which includes the police and military storages.

Shooters are not able to buy firearms without obtaining a permit-to-acquire from the police.  They might put a deposit on a firearm, but cannot own it until the police have satisfied themselves that the purchase is appropriate.

If we are to have registries, then yes, it would. Unfortunately not all state registries are set up for it, which is the responsibility of the respective police forces.
In any case an online registry would be of no use to the AMA, because they would not – and should not – have access to it.

If anything, shooting organisations want our laws to be based on facts and data.  They also want them to be consistent, just like you can drive interstate on a Victorian licence.
Unfortunately our gun laws don’t work in the same way, and they should.

Exit mobile version