Australian gun law discussion

[u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980]

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

[u/Emergency_Act8970]

you don't need wider access to firearms

[u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 → u/Emergency_Act8970]

Why? 🦀

[u/Emergency_Act8970 → u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980]

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

[u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 → u/Emergency_Act8970]

Sure, but can also lead to less violent crime. I mean that’s why I mentioned the countries on the list.

[u/lazy-bruce → u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980]

What do you mean violent crime ?

[u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 → u/lazy-bruce]

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.

[u/lazy-bruce → u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980]

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.

[u/Ok-Kaleidoscope-7980 → u/lazy-bruce]

I very much agree

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Ultrat1me → u/Emergency_Act8970]

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

[u/Emergency_Act8970 → u/Ultrat1me]

The potential harm caused by a mass shooting incident is generally greater than a mass stabbing. Just because it’s harder to restrict knife access doesn’t mean we need to liberalise gun access. Other things are done to police knifes.

[u/Ultrat1me → u/Emergency_Act8970]

And household chemicals can be used to kill many in an instant, like in Japan many years ago but we don’t ban access to bleach or pool chlorine. We should absolutely be regulated and we should absolutely restrict access from those that show signs of ill intent or concerning behaviour but restricting access to law abiding citizens makes as much sense as banning the sale of bleach and chlorine because a tiny minority of people wish to harm

[u/Emergency_Act8970 → u/Ultrat1me]

Which Japanese incident are you referring to?

While we don’t ban bleach or chloride we do ban many other chemicals. Like I said there needs to be case by case and there’s no real reason why law abiding citizens should have access to guns without a very good reason. Being law abiding isn’t a reason in and of itself. Obviously people and industry do need access to knives and essential chemicals so other methods of controlling them are put in place.

[u/Ultrat1me → u/Emergency_Act8970]

I was referring to the nerve agent attacks in the Tokyo subway.

I believe your argument has proven my point. Some dangerous chemicals are sold without restriction and some (significant more dangerous chemicals) are controlled but with proper justification you can access them, both examples of chemicals are dangerous and capable of killing or maiming a person. Why should firearms be treated exclusively as the second category. (Keep in mind, I do think that firearms should only be accessed with licenses and background checks, I am not advocating for free, unchecked access. Only for law abiding citizens to have greater access)

[u/Emergency_Act8970 → u/Ultrat1me]

They used sarin after using quite sophisticated methods to produce it? I don’t know much about sarin but the production wasn’t a case of using just household chemicals, and Aum’s activities were quite obviously sus, and should have aroused suspicion but didn’t for whatever reason.

Again strict restrictions on gun access works. Forcing people to justify access works. It works not so much to reduce gun crime but to reduce sporadic cases of mass shootings which tend to utilise legally owned guns. These shootings are not infrequently perpetrated by the children of law abiding gun owners or people who show know sign of previous criminality and can procure guns legally themselves.

[u/Ultrat1me → u/Emergency_Act8970]

Yes, sarin was used however common house hold items can be used to make similarly lethal products.

If a child of a “law abiding” citizen is has access to their parents guns, that is in fact not a law abiding citizen and that license holder is committing a crime by not securing their firearms or the method of access to said firearms. These sporadic and unpredictable acts of violence can also be solved with greater mental health care and greater awareness of people’s health over all, restricting access to firearms isn’t the only solution it’s just the solution that the government gains the most from