state laws will be updated to limit firearms owners to four guns for recreational use and 10 guns for commercial and farming use
The country’s gun lobby has opposed the plan, describing it as “the fight of our lives.”
🙄
Australia’s strongest gun reform since the Port Arthur massacre has become law. Here’s what you need to know
Submitted 3 weeks ago by Valasian@lemmy.world to australia@aussie.zone
Comments
PDFuego@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
stoy@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
If you can’t survive without four guns, I have to ask…
What the hell is wrong with you?
naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
You can survive without lots of things people want.
You can survive with one outfit, without ever going camping (harms the environment after all), without soft drink or fast food, without recreational drugs, without a video games or books.
That’s poor framing. The question is does the activity someone wants to engage in (and the tools involved) represent an unfair burden or risk to others in society. Now we can have that conversation about firearms in general but this limit is arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. It’s entirely vibes based.
Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
An 12gauge over and under for bird hunting
A 22 for small game
A 308 for larger game
A 338 for long distance targets and buffalo’s
A 4570 as a backup if you miss with the 338 and they’re not happy about it
A 410 shotgun for snakes
That’s what I personally own. Different tools for different jobs.
This 4 gun limit is a joke
I also own a 1941 303 all matching serial numbers as a collectors item.
MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
4 ‽
How about 1 revolver and 1 hunting rifle/shotgun?
Enough for anyone. Anywhere.
InevitableWaffles@midwest.social 3 weeks ago
Would you deny someone that ability to have more than 4 pairs of shoes? They need to be able to accessories. /s
MisterFrog@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
We should limit the number of guns for recreation to zero. It’s honestly dumb it’s allowed at all.
There are legitimate uses for guns, “fun” is not one of them.
No1@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
OK, if I don’t have a gun, and don’t want a gun, how will this hurt me?
Taleya@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
You’ll still whinge and complain, especially if you’re not an Australian
TheHolm@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
You will be arrested for accessing material on the manufacture to make a gun. Next time you shop in Burnings be careful. As an example if you are get a drill bit suitable for metal - you are criminal.
Tau@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
This has such broad potential for misapplication, but apparently everyone throws critical thinking out the window because guns are scary…
I think the gun number limit is also a kneejerk reaction playing more on people’s fears rather than actually being logical, but at least it’s affecting less people than the above.
Dimand@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
I would say it’s pretty typical of all Aus communication and intelligence legislation from the last 20 years. Put total overreach into the legislation then apply it selectively, because scary terrorists or scary guns or fucking bunyips, idk.
I have seen a lot of wives and mates getting gun licences recently. Pretty easy way to overcome the rather pointless quantity limitations. In some ways I worry the number limits may actually increase the spread of firearms in the country.
naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Thought crime is so awesome.
You looking up info about poisonous plants? Clearly a murderer! Read true crime describing how someone stalked someone? Obviously you’re about to do it.
Thought crime wooh all aboard the fucking thought crime train. Intent? Harm? No you thought bad thoughts and gained black and fell knowledge. To the torture cells with you!
NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
Is “carriage service” a weird legal way of saying bus?
Tau@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
It’s a way of saying a method of transmitting information. Replace ‘a carriage service’ with ‘the internet’ and you’d cover much (albeit not all) of the intention there.
Taleya@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
No.
Geobloke@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
Carriage service is pretty standard these days. Apparently it came about when people would transfer small amounts of money into other people’s accounts with threatening messages attached to the transfer
freedickpics@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
The whole law is one knee-jerk shitheap, brought on by a media and population demanding the government do ‘something’
naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
There’s precisely one thing in this law that might have actually prevented the massacre and it’s the more rigourous background checks.
Taleya@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
Tbh i think it’s one of those laws they can throw to get you on something when they have nothing else.
MisterFrog@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
Please explain how limiting how many guns people can have isn’t sensible.
Honestly, why do we allow “recreation” as a legitimate reason at all? Like, sorry, but when a hobby endangers the community, then it should be allowed. People will mental gymnastic a reason why it’s unfair to stop them enjoying their hobby, but I remain rather unconvinced.
I’m not across the new laws, but the limiting the number of guns someone can legally own part just doesn’t scream knee-jerk to me.
Tau@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
It’s a feeling based idea to assuage the public rather than a logic based one. If someone has four guns already there is little difference between what damage they are likely to be able to cause with those four vs what they could do with five, six, or seven (and the difference is less significant again if they already have ten). The limits seem rather arbitrary instead of evidence based and would not stop a repetition of the Bondi massacre, they appear instead to just be a quick decision made to show the government is doing something in reaction to a tragedy (something must be done, this is something therefore we must do it…).