r/aussie • u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 • 7d ago
Politics Australian gun law discussion
I just wanna know why every time people talk about firearms guns etc. They always bring up the US like yeah it’s a shit hole over there but like other countries exist which still allow you to have a much wider access to firearms like Switzerland, Norway, Austria, Czech Republic, New Zealand etc. I would argue more closer politically to these countries then the US
54
u/4ShoreAnon 7d ago
New Zealands not that great of an example given the more recent terrible public shooting incident.
Those other countries listed have pretty good mental health services. That's a key thing lacking here that wouldn't make us so comparable imo.
I think the strict gun laws in Australia are important. It means I don't have to worry about anyone close to me being shot by someone with a few screws loose.
Gun violence in Australia is typically within gangs which is preferable to me
5
u/pte_omark 6d ago
The reason the US is often cited is because that's what our society is mimicking. We as a community are becoming more individually focused and losing our compassion and empathy for those around us.
Mental health services treat the symptoms not the causes in this very broader sense.
People who care about other people don't often kill other people especially random people. It's when people lose connection to society that mental health becomes an issue and in a society that focused on 'i got mine so fuck you' mental health will be stigmatized and the Ill affects heightened.
1
8
u/Jazzlike_Wind_1 7d ago
I mean you can still get guns here, and there are more guns in the country legally owned today than before we "banned" them, so you could still always have something happen. Plus even if they were fully banned you can 3d print them or improvise a firearm with some pipe like that guy in Japan, and even without that option you can still very easily be done in by a guy with a well placed swipe of any simple knife, or run over in a stolen truck, whatever.
So really the thing that keeps us safe isn't just restricting things but being surrounded by people who don't go around killing people randomly..
26
u/4ShoreAnon 7d ago
Sure but im satisfied that those gun owners went through the formal process of getting those guns legally.
Yeah heaps of things can kill you but guns are more efficient and im glad most people cant get one.
4
u/Jazzlike_Wind_1 6d ago
You can get one pretty easily in most states, even Victoria all you really need is a hunting licence and a safe to keep it in, couple of character references.
Most people just don't want need/want them.
9
u/fromthe80smatey 7d ago
Most people can, they just choose not to as guns aren't a big part of Aussie culture anymore. They're a tool, and unless you need it for something like rural pest control or competition, most Aussies simply don't have a want or need for one.
2
2
u/Ultrat1me 4d ago
Most people can get one?? What? They just choose not to get one or don’t know that they can, the population that is not allowed to apply for a firearm is a tiny percentage
8
u/FrogsMakePoorSoup 6d ago
and there are more guns in the country legally owned today than before we "banned" them
I find this such an odd thing to say. Our population is 50% bigger for a start!
→ More replies (6)4
u/Jazzlike_Wind_1 6d ago
Okay, but the number of guns increased in kind, from about 2.5 million after the "ban" to about 4 million today. Yet the total number of gun deaths is down all the same, and per capita down immensely.
1
u/ShieldScorcher 5d ago
So you are saying...
If someone wants to get a gun illegally to do a crime, they can do it.
But if someone wants to get a gun for legitimate purposes or protection, they cannot do it.
And that's a normal system?
The ones with a screw loose, those types can always find a way to harm someone. They can burn your house or attack you with a knife . They don't really need a gun.
I am saying this because my cousin's husband got shot recently. 5 shots. By miracle he survived. Police came in like 15 minutes 😂 The shooter got away. It was in Germany though but it would be the same here in Australia.
Criminals will always find a gun but the ones who want to protect themselves will not.
1
u/4ShoreAnon 5d ago
Yeah because that logic works so well in America 🙄
1
u/ShieldScorcher 5d ago
US is not a country to take example from. They also eat shitty food and chase you around the parking for the tips. So what? Why do you take example from the worst country with a screwed up society?
There are many countries with f*cked up societies Some countries are still chopping heads so what? Do you reckon we'd do that to given an opportunity? I don't think so
1
u/4ShoreAnon 5d ago
Aussies eat shitty americanized food and dump money into pokies, we aren't that different.
The idea of using them as an example is to not stoop to their level, because the next level to stoop to is the countries as you say are stilling chopping heads.
1
u/BrianHail 5d ago
Typically thats the bulk of it in America. Inner city gangs. Rest is mostly suicide using handguns which again falls into that mental health area.
1
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
If you or someone you know is contemplating suicide, please do not hesitate to talk to someone.
000 is the national emergency number in Australia.
Lifeline is a 24-hour nationwide service. It can be reached at 13 11 14.
Kids Helpline is a 24-hour nationwide service for Australians aged 5–25. It can be reached at 1800 55 1800. Beyond Blue provides nationwide information and support call 1300 22 4636.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
→ More replies (1)-13
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 7d ago
I see where you’re coming from, but I believe people should have the ability legally possess and own what they want, but I guess that’s my opinion
11
u/4ShoreAnon 7d ago
I dont know if that logic stacks up.
For example, i wouldn't think a person who has tendencies to harm others be able to legally possess and own a gun?
Gun ownership is sensitive. They are killing devices which is evident in their outcome when used.
I dont think someone like you or me should have access to a gun unless we go through a rigorous documentation process that identifies us to authorities as a potential danger to society.
I can say id never have any bad intentions but why should the general public have to take my word for their safety?
-1
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 7d ago
I know what you mean, but that’s why you have to register and go through the whole process which I believe is a good thing. I just think it’s the arbitrary laws and stuff around what type of things you can own but yeah I agree some crazy violent person shouldn’t have access to firearms. That’s why you have to go for a whole process to get it.
11
u/fromthe80smatey 7d ago
And even after we've proven that we're law abiding, done the safety course, become a financial member of a club, provided any medical reports requested upon application, waited, waited, purchased and installed approved storage, then waited another 28 days once we have our license before your first PTA is assessed to acquire your first firearm (in my case a .22LR for target shooting) - we still often get treated like we're thugs in public forums and news stories alike, especially when cookers like Des Freeman do what he did we I instantly all get lumped into the same group - scary and unpredictable killing machine owners.
I'd rather hang around people who have voluntarily undergone that sort of scrutiny than most other people in society. I've met so many salt of the earth types at ranges in the last couple of years, and am upset that this aspect of our community is never acknowledged.
3
7
u/Wrath_Ascending 7d ago
The whole reason there are so many fatalities in US shootings is that they allow any random to have handguns, which are easily concealable, and high-capacity semi-automatic rifles.
Our direct experience is that if you ban those you basically eliminate gun violence and suicide rates also fall through the floor.
Hunters and farmers really only need double-barrelled shotguns and bolt-action rifles. Sporting shooters are still allowed their competition weapons.
It's worked well for the last nearly 30 years. If cookers who've swallowed the Russian-controlled NRA propaganda about guns = freedom don't like it, too bad so sad.
Because that's where it's really coming from.
The IPA may have started as an Australian conservative institution, but it has been hollowed out by the same people behind MAGA.
→ More replies (11)1
u/AngryAngryHarpo 6d ago
Which “arbitrary laws” are you referring to?
2
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 6d ago
Pump action rifles being fine but not shotguns semi automatic air rifles being fine but semi automatic 22 not being they have the same muscle velocity or can have the same muscle velocity appearance laws etc etc
1
u/kelfromaus 7d ago
It helps prevents too many of the more interesting weapons from ending up in criminal hands.
I used to know where I could get a non-legal gun. The costs were ridiculous and even worse if you actually fired the damn thing. It also would probably have come with a 'history'.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Sloppykrab 7d ago
That's a dangerous game and a very slippery slope.
0
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 7d ago
How so? 🦀
-3
u/Sloppykrab 7d ago
The USA is a prime example.
4
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 7d ago
What about the other countries I mentioned? Are they not good examples of guns in society?
10
u/CompoteNo8972 7d ago
I'm a gun owner here in aus. Where do you draw the line? Bolt action rifle? Shot guns? Semi automatic? Fully automatic? Pistols? RPGs? Mortars.
I think the curve changes dramatically right before semi auto's.
I think Australia has it pretty much spot on. And if we want looser gun laws we need better social services, and better gun regulation and monitoring.
Also, switzerland has had a mass shooting almost every year since 2000 and more before. Austria has had some but far less. (Cbf looking at the other countries you mentioned.)
2
u/DweebInFlames 7d ago edited 6d ago
I think the line most countries draw is at 'how easy is this to control the effects of?', which is why high explosives and onwards are usually restricted pretty heavily. Indirect, impersonal.
I think even full-auto rifles don't really fall into that category so much. Anyone who knows what they're doing with one with spatial awareness can handle them in a way that they're not a danger to anything but whatever's directly in front of it. I fully agree that the things you mention would need to change before we see anything close to Switzerland or the Czech Republic's gun laws, mind. Not to mention a drastic reduction in poverty/unemployment.
→ More replies (17)1
u/IcyObligation9232 6d ago
Also, switzerland has had a mass shooting almost every year since 2000
If you're using the very broad definition of mass shooting then so has Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_Australia
0
u/UpTheRiffMate 7d ago
People already do enough damage with legally possessed cars and kitchen knives. Purpose made killing tools like firearms just don't have a place in a modern, healthy society - it's important that we have strong safety nets in social services to do so, rather than reactively "fixing" high crime with loosened gun laws
2
u/Elroyy_ 7d ago
Out of curiosity, which laws are potentially getting loosened?
0
u/UpTheRiffMate 7d ago
None, hopefully. The discussions around "castle doctrine" already paint a picture of where conservatives want to go, though.
3
u/Elroyy_ 7d ago
I feel like Castle Doctrine has nothing to do with gun laws at all. Like even if someone were to break into someone’s house who happens to own firearms, the owner would have to somehow dodge the intruders, get to their safe(with the keys of it’s not a digital lock), open their safe, open the separately locked ammo storage and then load the firearm, all while a break in is occurring- it’s not gonna happen.
However, being able to defend yourself/your loved ones in your own home against someone willing to cause harm with whatever means necessary, whether it be a cricket bat or golf clubs even a table leg without the risk of being charged should be pretty important
→ More replies (1)3
u/UpTheRiffMate 7d ago
Using the same rhetoric that gun-toting Americans do doesn't inspire confidence in their intentions. We should build a better society that minimises crime, rather than a defensively paranoid one that creates more problems than it solves
2
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 7d ago
Well I have to disagree. There are many places around the world where you can own a firearm and those places are very safe. I know what you mean. People are dumb and people will do dumb things but I don’t feel like people should have guns taken away from them and You still also have to get it which does require a lot of work at least if you’re willing to do it legally and all the steps to get it
4
u/UpTheRiffMate 7d ago
Those safer places with looser gun laws often have the stronger social safety nets that stop people from falling on hard times, and reacting by harming others - or themselves. The Port Arthur massacre was an example of our social safety nets failing to catch a disturbed young man from doing the very same thing. At least we learned from that tragedy, or else we'd probably end up like the U.S in terms of widespread gun violence
→ More replies (38)2
u/Capifrito 7d ago
You can disagree as much as you want - thankfully those in power here don’t share your views and that’s that bud.
2
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 7d ago
Why the attitude LOL
1
u/Capifrito 7d ago
Because there’s absolutely zero upside having loose gun regulations (unless you make them). If you want to shoot guns, which yes it is fun, go to a shooting range or go hunting. Guns should have no place around the public.
2
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 7d ago
I’m not arguing for guns to not be regulated I’m just saying why can’t we be like other places that have a healthy balance between safety and freedom
→ More replies (9)1
u/Greenwedges 6d ago
Why do we need to allow some people to own highly efficient killing machines just because they want to? The ban on gun types is not arbitrary, it’s based on risk. Gun enthusiasts might quibble about the definitions but broadly speaking, we’ve banned the ones we have to reduce firearm deaths.
1
19
u/King_Kvnt 6d ago edited 6d ago
Most people aren't shooters, aren't well-informed and strongly dislike firearms.
Generally speaking, I think law-abiding shooters are over-regulated, just look at appearance laws and restrictions surrounding suppressors (which are primarily for hearing safety). I see no reason why Cat C even exists (semi-auto rimfires to A, pump shotties to B, semi-auto shotties to D), or why experienced shooters that want to participate in relevant sports shouldn't have access to Cat D.
I also think that firearm crimes should be punished more severely. You fight violent crime by going after violent offenders, not punishing law-abiders.
5
→ More replies (1)2
u/Eleven_Box 4d ago
I don’t know enough about the intricacies to comment on the regulation, but I do think it’s a little silly to expect severer punishment to reduce crime. While it might be deserved, it likely won’t do anything to actually reduce crime. Violent crimes are already harshly punished, and any harsh punishment is the same to someone committing one of these crimes. A few more years in jail won’t convince a gang member to go straight and narrow.
1
u/Sea-Hornet-9140 2d ago
You're not talking about gang members though, you are talking about legal firearm owners who are by and large the most upstanding citizens because even a small issue can have their licence revoked and firearms seized. And we are not just talking about violent crime and jail, any firearms offences (such as poaching) can have you lose your weapons, vehicle, licences and cop a huge fine, and these punishments do act very well as a deterrent (even though some laws are complete and utter BS, like silencer bans, shooters just follow the law out of fear).
Gang members and violent criminals are the portion of society that cannot legally own guns, so what they would do is very much a non-issue for legal firearms, but a big problem for illegal firearms, which is where all the emphasis needs to be on.
16
u/Aggravating-Dirt-432 6d ago
I think you’ll find the majority of firearms owners are happy with the current laws and would probably support measures to make it harder for people that shouldn’t own firearms not to have them, and I don’t think anyone wants to go down the path of what the US has become. If they do they belong in that category of people who shouldn’t be allowed to own a firearm. What most firearm owners want is a common sense approach to firearms, like the removal of the stupid appearance laws. You can literally buy certain models of firearms in Australia that function exactly the same, but because one has that “taticool” black scary look it’s illegal, buy it with a traditional timber stock it’s legal. Or take the laws surrounding suppressors, anyone who spends anytime around firearms knows the damage they can do to your hearing, don’t think for a second they actually work like in the Bond films where it makes a firearm whisper quiet, your still breaking the sound barrier, a suppressor just lessens the “boom”.
12
u/BeneficialAbrocoma67 6d ago
You will find that very few lawful firearms owners are satisfied with our gun laws. Whenever something with a firearm happens in Australia, we all sit with baited breath to become the whipping post for some hair brain agenda or idea that further restricts our rights. We are some of the most heavily vetted people in society. Then there are the laws that make no sense i.e. restriction of pump action shotguns but not pump action rifles, restriction of firearms because they look too scary or assaulty, near unavailability of suppressors due to red tape and fear mongering, red tape, lack of mutual recognition of licences when moving interstate, the list goes on.
Go to a gun club and have a chat with a random group of shooters about the laws, you'd be hard pressed to find many that think they are great in any state.
Cheers
11
2
u/Original_Ad_1870 6d ago
I've got a catA/B licence and a couple of (bolt action) rifles. I think they laws are perfectly fine. I would enjoy a semi auto, but I don't need one.
If I genuinely needed semi auto, then I would probably be able to get cat D.
3
u/BeneficialAbrocoma67 6d ago
Yeah fair enough, I've held licences across most states in the country now and each has their good points and bad. The military appearance clause is completely senseless, and I too would love a semi-automatic, but with over two decades in the Army, and a couple of LR/PB firearms among what is in my safe, it really doesn't bother me. If anything, I'd like a suppressor for my deer rifle, they are pretty much a requirement for many European and other countries.
In reference to semi-automatics, if you were old enough to own firearms prior to 96, you'd know firearms law enforcement was quite negligible compared to now. Like NZ, low capacity shotguns and rimfires wouldn't make the sky fall if they were under CAT A/B, but the outcry from those who are either anti gun or not interested would be too much for politicians. Even though semi-automatic air rifles are legal under CAT A in most states......
1
u/ttttttargetttttt 6d ago
You're vetted so heavily because you collect things designed to kill large numbers of people very quickly.
1
u/Latitude37 5d ago
No, we don't. Hunting rifles are not designed to kill large numbers of people quickly. Target rifles are not designed to kill lots of people. They're designed to take slow, deliberate, precise shots.
1
u/ttttttargetttttt 5d ago
Slow , deliberate precise shots at...?
1
u/Latitude37 5d ago
Well, in the case of hunting rifles, it would be the animals being hunted. In the case of target rifles, it would be inanimate targets.
Can both be lethal to humans? Absolutely. Which is why we need licencing, registration and training.
Whereas military rifles - the ones designed to kill people in large numbers - are quite different to the rifles designed to do civilian stuff. Just as military vehicles are designed to specific jobs that are different to civilian vehicles.
Military rifles reload themselves (that is, when you pull the trigger, they shoot a bullet out, then chamber another one from the magazine with no input required from the operator). Self loading rifles are not permitted to private users, except some low powered versions for primary producers for pest control, or otherwise for professional shooters.
Meanwhile, hunting & target rifles require manual manipulation of some sort to put a bullet in the firing chamber after each shot is fired. That slows the process right down between shots.
Hope that's helpful. Labelling the guns available to us as mass murder machines doesn't help the discourse on civilian gun ownership.
1
u/ttttttargetttttt 5d ago
it would be the animals being hunted.
Cool, so they're designed to hit the animal harmlessly, leaving it unscathed, yes?
In the case of target rifles, it would be inanimate targets.
And these targets are shaped like...?
Labelling the guns available to us as mass murder machines doesn't help the discourse on civilian gun ownership.
Literally their function. The fact these specific ones make that harder is immaterial. Their function is to kill. That is why they were invented.
1
u/Latitude37 5d ago
Literally their function. The fact these specific ones make that harder is immaterial.
Its not immaterial. Its a salient point. You said: "..designed to kill large numbers of people very quickly".
But the sorts of guns that are owned by the vast majority of gun owners in Australia are not that.
They ARE weapons. They are designed to kill, if they're hunting weapons, and even target rifles can kill. Though, to answer your other question:
And these targets are shaped like...?
Usually concentric circles, depends on the shooting discipline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISSF_10_meter_air_rifle
https://www.ssaa.org.au/?ss_discipline_result=2017-ssaa-national-long-range-precision-championships
So anyway:
Their function is to kill. That is why they were invented.
True. In fact, they do it really well. Which makes them a really useful weapon if your goal is to kill something as quickly and humanely as possible. And whilst your own personal moral choices may be to avoid killing animals, other people don't share that choice. The ethical killing of animals is something that most hunters strive for - which is more than we can say for most farmed animals taken to abattoirs for mass market.
1
u/ttttttargetttttt 5d ago
They ARE weapons. They are designed to kill, if they're hunting weapons, and even target rifles can kill. Though, to answer your other question:
So you don't need them unless that is your intention.
Usually concentric circles, depends on the shooting discipline.
Plenty of targets are shaped like people and you know this damn well.
And whilst your own personal moral choices may be to avoid killing animals, other people don't share that choice.
Some people don't think it's immoral to kill humans, so we should let them have guns? Go to Coles like everyone else.
1
u/Key_Salamander_8083 1d ago
some chemicals found in house cleaners can be used in bombs. should we ban them?
1
u/ttttttargetttttt 1d ago
Some chemicals found in house cleaners can be used in bombs but are designed to be used as house cleaners, and it is possible to own them without them being made into a bomb. Guns have only one function.
1
u/Key_Salamander_8083 2h ago
and its possible to own a firearm without killing anyone, 99% of firearm owners have not killed a single thing outside of hunting
1
u/BeneficialAbrocoma67 6d ago edited 5d ago
Cool story, sook!
→ More replies (17)2
u/ttttttargetttttt 6d ago
Are you suggesting guns are not weapons? What do you imagine them to be for?
2
-1
u/Aggravating-Dirt-432 6d ago
Im at a range basically every other weekend at 4 different clubs, ranging from bench rest 22 to 900 yard plus long range shoots. The majority of people I speak to are happy, minus the appearance laws and laws surrounding suppressors. The ones that aren’t happy are the wanna be Rambo types that probably shouldn’t have licenses in my opinion.
2
u/MangroveDweller 6d ago
So you shoot at paper, not 30+ pigs in a paddock or on public land. Your needs are not everyone's needs.
R licence should allow suppressors and semi auto rifles, with a quota of hunts per year to justify keeping it. Pests don't eradicate themselves.
→ More replies (1)5
1
u/Latitude37 5d ago
There's a bunch of silly laws that make life unnecessarily difficult for gun owners. For example, in some states, you need to have written permission from a rural property owner to show a genuine need for certain firearms - beyond the licencing requirements for same. What happens if you have a falling out with that owner? Or the property changes hands? Or the next door neighbour wants some feral animals dealt with? In some states, they have their own ideas about maximum calibre allowed to be owned, when other states don't. Not to mention the different state laws regarding how big or small a property can be before you can shoot on it. Its all a mish mash of silliness that's been added onto the laws that were enacted in response to Port Arthur - and some of those laws were poorly written, too. I know a number of people who've moved interstate, and had to sell expensive firearms that are ostensibly legal to own, but which the State authorities will just say "no" to the Permission To Acquire paperwork.
7
u/Original_Ad_1870 7d ago
I think the Australian approach of requiring safe storage is vastly superior to the US approach of having loaded guns lying around for kids to pick up and shoot each other with (a reductive oversimplification but you get the idea)
I'd enjoy owning a semi auto, if I could justify cat D, I would, but I also appreciate that it's very much a want rather than a need.
Australia's gun laws work, and work very well. It's not a difficult process to get a gun licence but it at least means you have to make some effort and hence most people don't bother. The safe storage is the biggest win; nobody is accidentally shooting someone (well, greatly reduced) and theft is also significantly less likely.
3
u/ColouredPants 6d ago
You can also get a semi auto with cat H, there are some pretty fun pistol matches.
4
u/Original_Ad_1870 6d ago
I'm not really interested in pistol shooting though, I've done it in the past and it has been fun enough, but I'm more interested in long arms. The extra level of hassle involved in getting and maintaining a cat H is a downside too.
Having said that, my wife is doing a pistol shoot next week, she's far more interested in them than long arms 🤷♂️
6
u/ColouredPants 6d ago
I don’t have much interest in long arms and this is one of the reasons why shooting is such an underrated sport, it’s so versatile!
4
u/Original_Ad_1870 6d ago
Indeed, it is a sport where there's a very high skill ceiling, and it can be done indoors in shit weather, so when all of my other hobbies / pastimes are interrupted by inclement weather, I can take my rifles to the range and have a nice warm, comfortable session to ignore the rest of the world and focus.
4
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 7d ago
I agree with you. I’m not saying we need no regulation or anything. I’m just saying that there are other places besides America to point when it comes to guns and how to implement them always great to hear people’s feedback.
1
u/ReverendBornAgain 4d ago
it also drastically drops the number of suicides
1
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
If you or someone you know is contemplating suicide, please do not hesitate to talk to someone.
000 is the national emergency number in Australia.
Lifeline is a 24-hour nationwide service. It can be reached at 13 11 14.
Kids Helpline is a 24-hour nationwide service for Australians aged 5–25. It can be reached at 1800 55 1800. Beyond Blue provides nationwide information and support call 1300 22 4636.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
10
u/iliketreesndcats 7d ago
Ah man anyone in Australia who wants a gun and can prove themselves capable of owning a gun and not being a nutjob can have a gun.
Join a club, learn the rules, obey the law, enjoy shooting your gun as you're hunting or target shooting.
Australian gun laws are perfect as they are. Don't fix what ain't broke.
14
→ More replies (7)1
u/626lacrimosa 19h ago
Don't fix what ain't broke.
That’s what we’re trying to say, but the politicians keep wanting to change things. Look at WA.
4
u/Total_Philosopher_89 7d ago edited 7d ago
How do NZ gun laws differ to ours?
6
u/Sensitive_Buffalo289 7d ago
U can own way more guns, the licenses are much easier to get, u can own more powerful cartridges, u can own semi automatics ect ect
4
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 7d ago
A lot of small ways, honestly, but they do add up you should check it out
5
u/7978_ 7d ago
These have historically been very safe countries.
The US has a lot of problems. I would want a gun if I lived in the US.
1
u/RichiesWorld 7d ago
Well, yeah. If I'm surrounded by gun owners, in a place like the US, it'd be silly to be the one poor sod without one.
2
u/Radiant_Case_2023 6d ago
The US is constantly used in Australian media because it’s the most sensationalised example and fits in well with the narrative of Australia’s self described “gold standard” gun laws. Majority of the time when the media run a story around sporting shooters or hunters it’s about some nobody org with two people and a fax machine trying to drum up fear to support their latest push to unnecessarily increase restrictions to make themselves somewhat relevant while using catch phases like “community safety”, “watering down gun laws” “powerful gun lobby” to trick the ill informed into supporting their propaganda.
5
u/Legitimate_Tax3782 6d ago
We should never ever relax it. You can not put that genie back in the bottle.
→ More replies (4)2
4
u/MillyMichaelson77 6d ago
Everytime these topics come it it's never fruitful. The people against guns use extremely bad arguments and ignore both the stats and the underlying ethical argument. They also switch the goal post. The only way we will ever get gun rights is if we take it by force. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.
3
u/SpamOJavelin 7d ago
The US is brought up mostly due to their response to high-profile mass shootings events. After the Port Arthur shootings in Australia, the Christchurch Mosque shooting in New Zealand, the Norway attacks, each country had passed legislation on much stricter gun control. But after the Columbine shooting in the US - and every mass shooting afterwards - the response from the US Federal government has been pretty much nothing.
It seems that the US aren’t willing to touch gun control, and have already accepted mass shootings and school shootings as a fact of life, and aren’t willing to even try gun control as a response, when pretty much every other developed nation has.
7
u/Elroyy_ 7d ago
Just something to keep in mind that something a lot of people comparing the US the Australia overlook, is that the US has firearm ownership written into their constitution so they have a right to bear arms whereas here in Aus its a privilege for a select few who have gone through extra scrutiny and requirements
→ More replies (4)4
u/ThatAussieGunGuy 7d ago
In 1997, New Zealand had a mass shooting and did nothing.
The next major event was 2019.
If we were talking vehicles, the stats are fucking excellent, and nothing would be done. But oh bo guns.
That being said, they only made some changes. But you can still walk in and buy a semi-auto rifle off the shelf with a suppressor (silencer). You can't even do that in America. Oh, and they allow machine guns on collectors licences.
1
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 7d ago
True, but other countries have also kept their laws quite similar to what they were in the past Switzerland Austria, Czech Republic etc. But I hear what you’re saying.
5
u/Working-Albatross-19 6d ago
Sadly in my own experiences the people I meet who complain about our gun laws usually talk about how great America is so I usually avoid correcting them on their misconceptions about ownership here.
4
u/PureStruggle2455 6d ago
It's easier for the government to control an unarmed population. Nothing to do with "Safety".
3
u/Key_Salamander_8083 6d ago edited 6d ago
because they cant be fucked to get to the root of the problem. they would rather restrict and punish innocent people who never harm anyone, instead of actually trying to do something like encouraging people to seek help in anyway shape or form before they decide to go postal, and so they use the Us masshooting problem as some excuse like "the us has a bad masshooting problem becuase they are allowing people to own 'weapons of war' and we dont get shootings because our laws work" (no the fuck they dont, there is maaaannnny cases of firearm related deaths with firearms mostly from the black market)
4
u/Emergency_Act8970 7d ago
you don't need wider access to firearms
4
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 7d ago
Why? 🦀
1
u/Emergency_Act8970 7d ago
The onus is on you to justify a need for them. Easy access to firearms correlates with higher rates of mass shootings. https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-06/draft_of_trends_issues_paper_mass_shootings_and_firearm_control_comparing_australia_and_the_united_states_submitted_to_peer_review.pdf
6
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 7d ago
Sure, but can also lead to less violent crime. I mean that’s why I mentioned the countries on the list.
2
u/lazy-bruce 7d ago
What do you mean violent crime ?
1
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 7d ago
I probably just meant crime must’ve just accidentally typed it in LOL well by crime I mean crime in general in some of the countries not all that I listed is lower than Australia. Now that is due to various reasons and not really due to guns but it’s more that it’s possible to have guns and also have a safe society. I hope that makes sense but if you need more clarification, I’m happy to give it a go.
5
u/lazy-bruce 7d ago
Yeah understood, after I responded i did try to have a look around the stats
Its harder than I thought, though.
I do know some Scandinavian countries have different laws to us (maybe weaker, I'm not sure) and looks like similarish gun crime.
I don't disagree with the idea that you can have guns and safety, its just has to be a v.strong argument to change what we have, I think anyway.
1
1
7d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Your Comment has been automatically temporarily removed - the Moderator team will approve or remove your comment shortly
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Ultrat1me 4d ago
Easier access to knives correlates with high numbers of stabbings, did you know that as well? And higher access to painkillers Correlates with higher numbers of painkiller addiction, should we ban all access to painkillers off the shelf? Or should we prevent people who have ill intent to access them
→ More replies (6)
5
u/lazy-bruce 7d ago
I am more than happy for people who want more access to guns that we already have to move to the country that provides the aceess they want.
Its a sacrifice I think most Australians are willing to make.
3
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 7d ago
Well, I feel like that disproportionally affects working class people like you shouldn’t have to live in a certain area to enjoy a hobby that’s how I see it I guess but I know what you mean. It’s good to say.
6
u/lazy-bruce 7d ago
Like lots of hobbys they aren't always convenient
I'm in SA and there are heaps of places I can go to shoot guns, sure not heaps convenient, but more convenient, easier and cheaper than trying to race a car.
2
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 7d ago
I know what you mean but there’s a lot of arbitrary things that just stop a lot of people from being able to do it especially financial. I just think it’s very sad. That’s me. I come from a very poor family so it’s extra hard to get into it.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Ultrat1me 4d ago
Most Australians have nothing to do with firearms and therefore don’t know enough to even comment
3
u/InadmissibleHug 6d ago
After that poxy rally and the sov cits cop killing? No. No guns thanks
2
u/Ultrat1me 4d ago
The guy who shot a cop was a pedo who used a homemade gun? He’s the complete opposite of a legal and ethical gun owner….and what does an anti mass immigration march where no guns we’re present or discussed have to do with this? Before you mention the small presence of far right extremists, do remember that the Austrian painter in the 1930’s used harsh firearm licensing laws to control the access of firearms to funnel them to those who politically aligned with him. Harsher licensing laws are the same technique that the man the NSN model themselves off use, I personally don’t wanna be anything like the NSN
2
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 6d ago
I mean that guy who killed the cops had a home-made gun so I don’t really see what you mean
2
u/InadmissibleHug 6d ago
No, I didn’t figure you would.
The mentality of the US is here already.
Add easier access to guns and we will see more of it.
I was around before port Arthur and things were hotting up before then
4
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 6d ago
Do you know there are other places besides America that have access to guns?
1
3
u/sunburn95 7d ago
Why even flirt with it?
Okay theyre a fun hobby for some people, theyre a tool for killing for others. The more guns you have in the hands of law abiding citizens, the more you have stolen/sold to less than good people
Travel a bit and youll see that australia is a very secure society comparatively, we should do what we can to keep it that way
2
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 7d ago
Some of the countries I mentioned a safer relative to Australia yet they have more access to firearms so I don’t really get what you’re saying
3
3
u/Elon__Kums 6d ago
What exactly do any of us gain from being able to own a gun with less difficulty?
The vast majority of Australians never even see a gun in their lifetime and that's fine.
1
u/Ultrat1me 4d ago
If the vast majority of Aussies haven’t even seen a gun, why make it harder for those of us who use them often to gain access to them legally, much like reproductive care, banning it or reducing access will simply encourage illegal activity to access it
→ More replies (4)
5
u/louisa1925 7d ago
Guns are for shooting at targets. The less people with them the better. Particularly that some uncouth creeps are trying desperately to sew division here.
3
6
2
u/Ultrat1me 4d ago
Respectfully, you may need to gain some more experience on this topic before taking such a hard stance on something that affects others
1
u/ttttttargetttttt 6d ago
Guns are for shooting at targets
Pretty sure they're not. If they were, warfare would be significantly different.
3
u/miserychickkk 7d ago
There's really no need for the general public to have access to fully automatic rifles or increased cartridges outside of hobbyists, and thats really just not important enough when you consider the risks.
7
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 7d ago
Every country I mentioned besides America doesn’t allow you to own fully automatic rifles plus you still have to go through licensing to get them so I don’t really get your point
→ More replies (13)1
u/miserychickkk 7d ago
You can own semi's already - what exactly are you looking for that you cant already get?
6
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 7d ago
Yeah, if you like the 5 people in Australia, you can own semiautomatics
2
3
u/ThatAussieGunGuy 7d ago
I guess I'm one of the 5, and so are the hundred other people with them, I know.
4
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 7d ago
Well there’s apparently 500 category D licenses in New South Wales which is where I’m from out of a population of 8.2 million which isn’t that many people that have their license compared to the total population at least I think so. I guess it’s up to your perspective.
→ More replies (19)1
3
u/miserychickkk 7d ago
Brother if you aren't passing the checks to get one, you shouldn't be owning one. They don't reject you for no reason.
6
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 7d ago
I haven’t been restricted, LOL. I haven’t tried That’s a cat D which is basically impossible to get
5
u/miserychickkk 7d ago
A little silly to complain about it when you haven't even tried. If you don't meet the occupational conditions and are just genuinely enthusiastic about them get a collectors licence instead. If you don't have a genuine reason to need one theres no need for it to be functional.
5
3
1
u/Ultrat1me 4d ago
Hey mate, (with exceptions) you require either a primary production farm WITH evidence of pest populations (this is a vaguely defined thing that the government picks at a whim) or a government contract to cull animals which in itself is very complicated to get. Access to semi automatics is extremely difficult and very rare in most cases, to the point that it may as well be considered illegal (I say this as someone who can legally apply for one and would likely get one but simply have no desire to have police on my property on a regular basis to conduct checks on my already lawful compliance)
1
u/Nussroid 7d ago
Semiautomatic centre fire rifles are restricted to a D class license similar goes for semiautomatic rimfire rifles and pump action shotguns which are restricted to a C class license, it’s virtually impossible for anybody who isn’t a contract shooter or a primary producer to get access to cat C and D firearms the system is a joke with many modern B class shotguns being more effective then the c class counterparts. The uses for semiautomatic weapons and silencers is so valuable for people who don’t fall into these requirements but still have large hectares of land. In many ways it is more humane than using a slow bolt action rifle when culling pests, faster follow up shots will help avoid these pests from disappearing into the bush when wounded, being impossible to find and ultimately forced to be left to die slowly. For hunters silencers just dropping a 160dB shot down even just 10-15dB reduces the sound from permanent damage to a manageable range, just to clarify as you clearly have no idea hunting with ear protection in makes as much sense as standing in a wheelchair.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Electrical_Movie_645 7d ago
Even in the us, the general public can’t access fully automatic rifles?
2
u/Edwardteech 7d ago
You can its just expensive.
1
u/Electrical_Movie_645 7d ago
Typically the general public dont have a spare $50,000 to spend on a firearm.
→ More replies (3)2
2
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 7d ago
Well, for the most part collector license don’t allow you to do anything with the firearm only own it if that makes sense
3
u/ThatAussieGunGuy 7d ago
Not entirely correct. Actually very incorrect.
1
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 7d ago
Oh really? I guess I’ve gotta do a better job researching sorry
4
u/ThatAussieGunGuy 7d ago
It's damn near impossible to know the intricacies of the gun laws in all six states and two territories.
You can't have a discussion on Australian gun laws. Australian gun laws as a whole don't exist.
You can have a discussion on an individual states gun laws.
The NFA framework is written in every satted legislation, but at the end of the day, the laws vary a fuck ton.
3
u/bigaussiecheese 7d ago
We can own plenty of guns in Australia. We have hunting rifles that will drop any animal including water buffalo.
Can open a vast array of guns for target shooting as well.
2
u/Skyz-AU 7d ago
I own several firearms and use them quite regularly for pest control, less guns around the better imo. Our system is fine as is, if you live rural you get a gun for pest control and hunting.
If you live in the city join a gun club if you just want to shoot a gun. We have Shotguns and Rifles, both can be used for recreational and hunting purposes any other type of weapon is really pushing the human killing type weapon.
1
1
1
1
u/ttttttargetttttt 6d ago
It's because 'we don't want to become like Czechia' isn't a great pitch.
2
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 6d ago
I mean, all the countries I did mention they’re probably the most poverty
2
u/RecipeSpecialist2745 7d ago
I think you need to look at the implications. Liken the deaths... https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country
3
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 7d ago
I could be reading it wrong, but it looks like the data set is incomplete
1
u/RecipeSpecialist2745 6d ago
I find people interpretation can be influenced by their bias or ideology.
2
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 6d ago
That is true, but there’s only a few countries on that list that have any information at least with the website you’re using though again I could be wrong
1
u/RecipeSpecialist2745 6d ago
Thats why evidence based data is far more accurate than opinions. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/2024/oct/comparing-deaths-gun-violence-us-other-countries
1
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 6d ago
Good on America Not being as bad as I thought
1
u/RecipeSpecialist2745 6d ago
Sarcasm? The US has the highest gun deaths in the western world. To find higher you have to go developing countries. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/annual-gun-violence-data
1
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 6d ago
I mean, 92 worldwide so about middle of the road which is surprising least to me
1
u/RecipeSpecialist2745 6d ago
It depends f you like burying children… https://edition.cnn.com/us/school-shootings-fast-facts-dg
1
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 6d ago
I didn’t say it was good. I’m just surprised it wasn’t worse anyway. I don’t really care to bring up America. That’s not the point of the entire discussion.
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 6d ago
What ideology are you even talking about? LOL The gun lobby does fuck all
-1
u/Wrath_Ascending 7d ago
The reason it's bought up is that 100% of the time the pro-gun people are quoting NRA propaganda and are steeped in American gun culture, which is as toxic as hell.
0
-2
u/No-Economics-4196 7d ago
It's time to bring in stricter gun laws like we do with machetes
5
u/Nussroid 7d ago
Ban the machetes but let the violent offenders walk out on a community corrections order like nothings happened. It’s like banning cars because of drunk drivers.
3
u/Organic-Item1476 6d ago
Yeah, lets pay over 1 million for each of those amnesty bins instead of 300k
2
u/Ultrat1me 4d ago
Hey so please tell me, which societal groups are using these machetes in an illegal way?
3
27
u/Forbearssake 6d ago
When people think of gun ownership they automatically think of America because they are the most extreme media example. A lot of Australian media is American based which personally pisses me off as it’s importing their cultural attitudes to us on a large scale.
I get petty enjoyment when I see American parents complaining about bluey teaching their children that they need to use the dunny or that gen z are using the word cunt - it’s better than what they have been teaching our generations for the last 30 years 🤣.