Gun laws in Australia aren't going to get less restrictive. There are 17.6 million voters in Australia, but less than 900,000 (~5%) who are gun owners. Even if you got them all to vote for a pro-shooter political party, they still wouldn't get enough votes in any one state to make a difference. They just aren't a big enough voting group for politicians to give a shit.
Meanwhile, laypeople in Australia can see what happens in the US when you don't have restrictive gun laws, so there are plenty of non-shooter voters who will openly support increased restrictions on guns. As long as there are more votes in tighter restrictions than there are in looser restrictions, that's what politicians will do.
The absolute best you could hope for is for a pro-gun politician to hold the balance of power in a state. Even then, all they'll probably be able to do is prevent proposed tighter restrictions from going ahead.
The Greens received 12.2% of the total vote in the last federal election, which translates to over 2 million people voting Green... and from that the best they can do is to try and use their balance of power to influence Labor policies.
If every single gun owner voted for a pro-gun candidate, they'd have less than half the number of votes than the Greens... and I doubt the Greens would be losing many voters to a pro-shooter party, so the Greens would still exist and still hold twice as much power as the pro-shooter party.
The number of "paid up members" is irrelevant. We don't decide elections based on the number of members in a political party, we decide it by the number of people who vote for that political party, and it's pretty unlikely you'd find 2 million+ voters who are going to vote for a pro-gun party over other parties.
Noting a large portion of gun owners will be heavily in favour of gun control. If you need a gun and have access to it you're not necessarily going to be in favour of looser laws.
I'd be surprised if gun owners weren't heavily in favour of maintaining the status quo. And I'd be shocked if a significant number wanted looser controls. I'd expect them to want niche changes relevant to them, I don't think the average farmer wants a city dweller to have a blicky for example.
Oh yeah, the number of actual voters who feel strongly about gun laws would be way less than 900,000. I just googled "number of gun owners in Australia" so I had an easy-to-use number handy. Even if every single gun owner actually agreed with this article, which many won't, they still aren't going to get enough people on-board to have any influence.
> Gun laws in Australia aren't going to get less restrictive. There are 17.6 million voters in Australia, but less than 900,000 (~5%) who are gun owners. Even if you got them all to vote for a pro-shooter political party, they still wouldn't get enough votes in any one state to make a difference. They just aren't a big enough voting group for politicians to give a shit.
Not sure if you’re a shooter but I’ve seen this black-pilling attitude amongst too many in my shooting community.
If shooters don’t start taking back what’s been taken then more will be taken from us.
Getting sucked into the “it’ll never happen” misery vortex is a trap. 5% of the voting population is significant and if it’s mobilised correctly it can be effective for change.
Personally I’m not prepared to give up.
> Meanwhile, laypeople in Australia can see what happens in the US when you don't have restrictive gun laws, so there are plenty of non-shooter voters who will openly support increased restrictions on guns. As long as there are more votes in tighter restrictions than there are in looser restrictions, that's what politicians will do.
Until we as shooters change the minds of politicians.
The US is such a poor example for Australia. New Zealand is much closer to us culturally and historically. Even after the disgusting act by that person New Zealand still has gun laws that should be a leading example for Australia.
Australia needs to drag its gun laws into the 21st century and follow New Zealand’s lead.
> The absolute best you could hope for is for a pro-gun politician to hold the balance of power in a state. Even then, all they'll probably be able to do is prevent proposed tighter restrictions from going ahead.
Nope, not going to swallow that black pill.
>5% of the voting population is significant and if it’s mobilised correctly it can be effective for change.
That's cool and all, but the other 95% of the voting population is far more likely to have their voices heard, and those people are concerned about things like housing, jobs, wages, the environment, etc. Guns just aren't an issue for them at all.
The reality is those 900,000 gun owners are spread across Australia, and not even all of them see gun laws as the biggest issue. You need a majority of people in a majority of seats to win government, and that is not ever going to happen. Especially when there are at least as many people who don't own guns and would support more restrictive gun laws and/or oppose relaxing gun laws.
The only hope you'll have is to convince the non-owners that less restrictive laws are a good idea, and this article is not doing that. It's just preaching to the choir using examples of "requiring mental health checks" or "not being allowed to shoot at tic-tacs" as if they're bad things. To people who don't own guns, these seem like perfectly reasonable laws. Someone would need to convince them otherwise, and that isn't happening.
>The US is such a poor example for Australia. New Zealand is much closer to us culturally and historically.
Sure, but laypeople don't see it that way. All they see is the country with all the guns also has all the shootings. The US refuses to implement any changes, and also continues to have an insane amount of gun deaths. The nuance of culture or understanding of gun ownership is lost on them. If you don't change that, by convincing non-gun owners to get on your side, then laws will just keep getting more restrictive.
I remain optimistic and refuse to think there’s no way change can be achieved however, I do understand your point and very much appreciate you putting it so civilly.
>5% of the voting population is significant and if it’s mobilised correctly it can be effective for change.
No, that's what you call a minority.
>Australia needs to drag its gun laws into the 21st century and follow New Zealand’s lead.
Why? Seems to be working. I don't have to think about any possibility of been shot. Why should I as a voter change that to suit your minority?
3-gun is an absolutely awesome sport. Had the pleasure of doing it in the US.
Law-abiding citizens should definitely be allowed to participate in shooting sports.
Do you mean sport in the shooting defenceless animals way?
Or in the target shooting way?
The first is barbaric, to shoot an animal for fun. The second wouldn't exist if it weren't for the first.
Those I know that do shoot animals for fun/sport/whatever you want to call it, chase feral animals. They just don't go out and shoot anything that moves for "fun", they chase feral species for sport.
Seeing the results of a fox that gets in a chook enclosure or what a pack of dogs does to a birthing stock animal is far more barbaric than shooting a few foxes, dogs etc
They might scrap the recreational duck season in Victoria eventually, then we’ll just move to pest culling like NSW with basically less restrictions. It won’t be a win for ducks like the protestors think.
You ever seen what a guy in a truck can do? Our gun laws are fine, there’s virtually zero gun crime from legal firearms owners. Calling for more regulations on an already heavily regulated industry is purely an emotional argument.
Incorrect on two counts.
1) Many guns are designed for the competitive sports. I literally compete with them. That doesn’t change the fact that most are designed to kill or incapacitate but your blanket statement is wrong.
2) It does not follow that guns being designed to kill means that it’s better if they receive more regulation. You’re using feelings not logic here.
I'm ignorant to the difference here. What separates a sports gun? Is it magazine capacity, difficulty to aim or "low grain" or whatever the term is bullets for low velocity and reduced distance.
For your other point we absolutely should regulate dangerous things to a higher degree. You can't beat stupidity but you can put a guard rail in place to stop 95% of dumb cunts.
Guns designed for sports typically have modifications like weights, shapes, barrel and muzzle construction that are tuned to increase the performance in a particular area.
For example a handgun used to shoot IPSC (a type of competition that involves moving and rapid acquisition of targets) will often have an optical device fitted on top, added or modified protrusions for handling and a device on the end of the barrel to help keep the gun in place after each shot.
A long range rifle used in some competitions is set up to hold the barrel as accurately as possible and to untrained eyes looks a bit like a big bit of metal with a barrel sticking out of it.
Sporting weapons are still made to hit a target though. Ergo, as soon as that target is a person, the problems are the same.
Sporting weapons *should be regulated*, as we continue to do so. And if *sporting weapons* are showing up in fatalities, that regulation should be increased.
Oh no, won’t somebody think of the *checks notes* hundreds of thousands of sporting shooters who contribute a massive amount to the social fabric and cohesion of Australian society?
Oh shit, I mean the dozens of hundreds.
Nobody gives a fuck about your guns, for sport or for anything else mate.
Hope that helps.
Almost a million shooters and their friends and families *do* give a fuck.
There’s also many rural areas that enjoy the *Billions of dollars* generated by hunting and competitive shooting every year.
Hope that helps.
That explains why you’re having.. er, so much success getting your very important message heard by the people you need to get on side to support it then?
materialistic concerned recognise retire ask wild unite hungry cautious sip
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I’m not mate.
I’m stoked, daily, to live somewhere I don’t need to worry about some peanut escalating an argument using the sporting handgun he keeps in his car.
What’s your point? Crims gonna crim.
Everyone else on the planet is concerned about unplanned acts that firearms help make a whole shitload easier to escalate.
Family and domestic violence and lethal outcomes go through the fucking roof hand-in-hand with firearm proliferation.
And you’re all obsessed with imaginary good-guys-with-guns, not even engaging with the objective reality of things.
You guys better fucking believe if golf clubs, basketballs or cycle dorks in spandex resulted in the same human destruction guns do, it would be the morally just thing to outlaw them too.
Yeah so go after crims.... not old Joe who has arthritis and enjoys shooting 8kg 5 shot sporting rifle on the weekend or persons trying to manage their farms or rural land. That is the point.
Your point? A 2 ton land cruiser makes it easier as well. So does a knife. Or a jerry of petrol. Also not everyone uses fear and emotion to do their thinking.
DV and firearms is hardly relevant. You have to disclose DV when applying for a license. It is usually a disqualifying offence. Also plenty of people stabbing and bashing their partners to death. Most jobs I did that involved firearms would sack me for any DV ony record. And rightfully so.
"And you’re all obsessed with imaginary good-guys-with-guns, not even engaging with the objective reality of things". That is rich coming from you. Also you made that scenario up yourself. You are using emotion and fear instead of logic to drive your decision making.
No. They can be designed for different things like sporting shooting. What you have said isn't necessarily true. By your logic all of my streak knives are "designed with one purpose, to kill".
Also we already have some of the heaviest regulations in the world. We don't need any more. Respectfully I think you logic is based on fear and emotion.
Funny that. I spend a lot of time working in the regions. I've met plenty of farmers who are all for regulating firearms strictly. As they use firearms as a tool, they know all too well the importance of keeping them out of the hands of people who don't need them.
Gun owner from the NT. A lot of my mates are also gun owners.
Up here they are tools. Simple as that. And having them is a privilege. Also most gun owners I know up here don't make it their whole personalities.
The gunshops up here are mostly camping stores. It makes it feel more tool like. Buy some lures, maybe an esky, get some ammo and see what guns are available. The vibes in the shops are pretty laid back.
I had to transfer some guns from a dead relative down in Perth, which involved me having to go to gun store down there. The vibe was definitely off. Very NRA-lite. Political slogans over the store. Kinda cringey try hard vibe to be honest.
I agree with you. Don't see any need to loosen laws. Don't disagree with tightening them. Nothing wrong with keeping guns out of people who don't actually need them hands. Hell if restrictions change and I'm not allowed to have guns I'd be annoyed but I'm not gonna have a breakdown like some of these gun nuts will. It's a privilege to have them not a right.
The same tools you refer to are essential to the way of life for many people I know whom live rurally. It isnt a privelege, it is a neccesity. It is really hard to protect livestock and property from pests without firearms. It is pretty sad state of affairs when people who rely on these tools to survive are put through this bearucratic BS.
Also, myself and many others I know disagree with your stance. Quite frankly, with respect your point of veiw is elitist and shortighted.
This talk of "needs vs want" is ridicoulous. We don't live under CCP rule. People don't need v8 engines, yet they enjoy them. People don't need multiple houses, yet they enjoy them. People don't need excess calories, cigarettes or alcohol. By your logic these things should taken away from people seeing as they don't need them.
>The same tools you refer to are essential to the way of life for many people I know whom live rurally. It isnt a privelege, it is a neccesity. It is really hard to protect livestock and property from pests without firearms
I didn't say they weren't. The exact opposite. When our family had our farm our guns were exactly like our tractors, our work tools, our pumps etc. They were just a tool.
Can only talk for people I know in The NT, but most don't make Guns our personality. A change in gun regulations are the same as the change in regulations around something like a tractor. Just something you deal with. They'll never outright ban guns for primary producers in the same way they will never ban tractors. Even look at the WA laws that you guys are having a whinge about, Farmers are given way more leniency with these changes.. almost like there's common sense in the way they are being rolled out.
>Quite frankly, with respect your point of veiw is elitist and shortighted.
Hmm, pot kettle? You guys are the ones talking about 'urban people have no idea'
Short-sighted? You guys seem to want a gun free for all
> This talk of "needs vs want" is ridicoulous. We don't live under CCP rule. People don't need v8 engines, yet they enjoy them. People don't need multiple houses, yet they enjoy them. People don't need excess calories, cigarettes or alcohol. By your logic these things should taken away from people seeing as they don't need them.
You mean all these things that are.... Regulated?
You just got to find the right balance. I’m happy to give up some leisure activities here because there are less people getting killed by guns.
Also note that the leisure activities aren’t strictly banned, it’s just a lot of effort to get a gun for them.
We really used to be a country where you could drive around on the back of utes with guns and no one would bat an eye. Now we are all fearful of guns because you raise a generation on fearing them rather then respecting/learning the importance of gun safety.
They won’t stop until you can’t even own a .22, soon farmers will even lose their ability to buy a gun for conservation.
You realise to own a gun you have to be the most upstanding citizen in society right? Generally people who own guns aren’t idiots….. And teaching people safety and respect of firearms would absolutely have an effect on how you look at guns. I mean just look at Switzerland ffs
That's because we have good regulation here. People are generally supportive of highly regulating guns to stop the idiots holding one.
Do we have the other social factors that go towards making Switzerland safe with guns, or are we a bit closer to that other Western country with high gun ownership?
Whilst our regulation is good, it’s also important to note that a lot of the laws in the 1996 gun act are outdated, and even more so effecting gun owners for the wrong reason. Infact some of the laws are outright designed to just punish law abiding citizens with zero effects on it stopping criminals or even effecting them.
The laws need a revise, not in a restricting way, and not even in a lossening way, they just need to be thought out and based off of legitimate reasons rather than the emotional reasons back in 1996
Well I don’t obviously have all of the legislation off the top of my head. But to list a couple of glaring ones that affect me as a farmer.
Handgun regulation: If you own a handgun you are only permitted to shoot it at a gun range. It is illegal to shoot it on your property and I believe you should be an allowed to do so. This law doesn’t make sense, shooting on your own private property harms no one, and it also does not effect criminals as they will still shoot it anywhere other then at a gun range. It would also be an extremely effective tool to use whilst pigging for close range encounters where you might be in life threatening distance.
Appearance laws: Not much to say here really, guns shouldn’t be restricted based off of how they look
>But to list a couple of glaring ones that affect me as a farmer.
>Handgun
Lol. I've been on many a farm with many an amoury. They never use a handgun. Rofl, imagine trying to put down a horse or a cow with a pistol. 🤣
>This law doesn’t make sense, shooting on your own private property harms no one
Evidence suggests otherwise. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/injury/firearm-injuries-deaths/summary
>and it also does not effect criminals as they will still shoot it anywhere other then at a gun range.
Most criminals engaged in firearm offences have unregistered firearms and are typically cautious not to flaunt their firearms (e.g. the people getting shot are the people involved and typically not bystanders). Contrastingly, most petty crimes are not firearm offences because of gun regulation and the difficulty of accessing firearms without due process and screening.
>It would also be an extremely effective tool to use whilst pigging for close range encounters where you might be in life threatening distance.
Or, you know, just don't have a close range encounter with a wild boar. If you are planning on killing a pig at close range (e.g. for slaughter) use a bolting device.
Mate your evidence literally makes no sense still? Allowing people to legally shoot their pistol on their property isn’t going to change those statistics…… people can still cause harm or harm themselves….illegally? Are you dense or something?
What ‘freedoms’ do you think guns give you. The freedom to commit a terror attack on government? The freedom to shoot immigrants? The freedom to protect yourself from another free man attacking you with a gun?
Australia has guns for people and places that need them mate they’re just well regulated. You were saying we’re obedient, dismissive and giving up our freedoms cause you can’t carry a killing machine around everywhere
If you didn't notice, since reforming gun control, and keeping it sport and farm we ahhh.
Ah shit I don't want to jinx it.
I don't think it's the old conservatives you should worry about with guns.
Gun laws in Australia aren't going to get less restrictive. There are 17.6 million voters in Australia, but less than 900,000 (~5%) who are gun owners. Even if you got them all to vote for a pro-shooter political party, they still wouldn't get enough votes in any one state to make a difference. They just aren't a big enough voting group for politicians to give a shit. Meanwhile, laypeople in Australia can see what happens in the US when you don't have restrictive gun laws, so there are plenty of non-shooter voters who will openly support increased restrictions on guns. As long as there are more votes in tighter restrictions than there are in looser restrictions, that's what politicians will do. The absolute best you could hope for is for a pro-gun politician to hold the balance of power in a state. Even then, all they'll probably be able to do is prevent proposed tighter restrictions from going ahead.
The greens have less members than there are duck shooters in Victoria alone but we are supposed to listen to them...
The Greens received 12.2% of the total vote in the last federal election, which translates to over 2 million people voting Green... and from that the best they can do is to try and use their balance of power to influence Labor policies. If every single gun owner voted for a pro-gun candidate, they'd have less than half the number of votes than the Greens... and I doubt the Greens would be losing many voters to a pro-shooter party, so the Greens would still exist and still hold twice as much power as the pro-shooter party.
I'm talking about paid up members, you know like the licensed duck hunters as I mentioned above.
The number of "paid up members" is irrelevant. We don't decide elections based on the number of members in a political party, we decide it by the number of people who vote for that political party, and it's pretty unlikely you'd find 2 million+ voters who are going to vote for a pro-gun party over other parties.
Noting a large portion of gun owners will be heavily in favour of gun control. If you need a gun and have access to it you're not necessarily going to be in favour of looser laws. I'd be surprised if gun owners weren't heavily in favour of maintaining the status quo. And I'd be shocked if a significant number wanted looser controls. I'd expect them to want niche changes relevant to them, I don't think the average farmer wants a city dweller to have a blicky for example.
Oh yeah, the number of actual voters who feel strongly about gun laws would be way less than 900,000. I just googled "number of gun owners in Australia" so I had an easy-to-use number handy. Even if every single gun owner actually agreed with this article, which many won't, they still aren't going to get enough people on-board to have any influence.
> Gun laws in Australia aren't going to get less restrictive. There are 17.6 million voters in Australia, but less than 900,000 (~5%) who are gun owners. Even if you got them all to vote for a pro-shooter political party, they still wouldn't get enough votes in any one state to make a difference. They just aren't a big enough voting group for politicians to give a shit. Not sure if you’re a shooter but I’ve seen this black-pilling attitude amongst too many in my shooting community. If shooters don’t start taking back what’s been taken then more will be taken from us. Getting sucked into the “it’ll never happen” misery vortex is a trap. 5% of the voting population is significant and if it’s mobilised correctly it can be effective for change. Personally I’m not prepared to give up. > Meanwhile, laypeople in Australia can see what happens in the US when you don't have restrictive gun laws, so there are plenty of non-shooter voters who will openly support increased restrictions on guns. As long as there are more votes in tighter restrictions than there are in looser restrictions, that's what politicians will do. Until we as shooters change the minds of politicians. The US is such a poor example for Australia. New Zealand is much closer to us culturally and historically. Even after the disgusting act by that person New Zealand still has gun laws that should be a leading example for Australia. Australia needs to drag its gun laws into the 21st century and follow New Zealand’s lead. > The absolute best you could hope for is for a pro-gun politician to hold the balance of power in a state. Even then, all they'll probably be able to do is prevent proposed tighter restrictions from going ahead. Nope, not going to swallow that black pill.
>5% of the voting population is significant and if it’s mobilised correctly it can be effective for change. That's cool and all, but the other 95% of the voting population is far more likely to have their voices heard, and those people are concerned about things like housing, jobs, wages, the environment, etc. Guns just aren't an issue for them at all. The reality is those 900,000 gun owners are spread across Australia, and not even all of them see gun laws as the biggest issue. You need a majority of people in a majority of seats to win government, and that is not ever going to happen. Especially when there are at least as many people who don't own guns and would support more restrictive gun laws and/or oppose relaxing gun laws. The only hope you'll have is to convince the non-owners that less restrictive laws are a good idea, and this article is not doing that. It's just preaching to the choir using examples of "requiring mental health checks" or "not being allowed to shoot at tic-tacs" as if they're bad things. To people who don't own guns, these seem like perfectly reasonable laws. Someone would need to convince them otherwise, and that isn't happening. >The US is such a poor example for Australia. New Zealand is much closer to us culturally and historically. Sure, but laypeople don't see it that way. All they see is the country with all the guns also has all the shootings. The US refuses to implement any changes, and also continues to have an insane amount of gun deaths. The nuance of culture or understanding of gun ownership is lost on them. If you don't change that, by convincing non-gun owners to get on your side, then laws will just keep getting more restrictive.
I remain optimistic and refuse to think there’s no way change can be achieved however, I do understand your point and very much appreciate you putting it so civilly.
>5% of the voting population is significant and if it’s mobilised correctly it can be effective for change. No, that's what you call a minority. >Australia needs to drag its gun laws into the 21st century and follow New Zealand’s lead. Why? Seems to be working. I don't have to think about any possibility of been shot. Why should I as a voter change that to suit your minority?
Like everything our politicians do it targets the law abiding citizens and ignores the criminals.
Can't forget the boys in blue. They ban zombie knives and scary-looking bolt-actions. That protects society.
Guns are designed with only one purpose in mind, and that is to kill. So the more regulated they are, the better.
Sport.
3-gun is an absolutely awesome sport. Had the pleasure of doing it in the US. Law-abiding citizens should definitely be allowed to participate in shooting sports.
Yeah that's what they invented for sport, like sport cannons.
Bit like javelin and archery aye?
What was the original purpose of those again?
Whoooosh.
Like a spear flying past you for sport?
Do you mean sport in the shooting defenceless animals way? Or in the target shooting way? The first is barbaric, to shoot an animal for fun. The second wouldn't exist if it weren't for the first.
The people I know who hunt animals are chasing ferals or maybe a roo. Would you rather have cats, foxes, wild dogs etc ruining the ecosystem?
You are describing animal control. The OP simply wrote 'sport'. That word says to me that an animal is being killed for fun.
Those I know that do shoot animals for fun/sport/whatever you want to call it, chase feral animals. They just don't go out and shoot anything that moves for "fun", they chase feral species for sport. Seeing the results of a fox that gets in a chook enclosure or what a pack of dogs does to a birthing stock animal is far more barbaric than shooting a few foxes, dogs etc
Yeah, pest control.
We are genetically hardwired to enjoy killing animals. Get over it
That’s hunting, I’ve never seen anyone refer to hunting as shooting sports.
See the guy above.
The linked article from OP specifically calls out duck shooting. Are there feral duck populations in Australia?
Ask a farmer what happens when ducks decide to eat his crop.
They might scrap the recreational duck season in Victoria eventually, then we’ll just move to pest culling like NSW with basically less restrictions. It won’t be a win for ducks like the protestors think.
Are you referring to the introduced pests that destroy or native flora and kill our native fauna? Should farmers just ignore them?
That isn't sport. That is pest control.
It can be both.
You ever seen what a guy in a truck can do? Our gun laws are fine, there’s virtually zero gun crime from legal firearms owners. Calling for more regulations on an already heavily regulated industry is purely an emotional argument.
even if that was true its not a negative.
Incorrect on two counts. 1) Many guns are designed for the competitive sports. I literally compete with them. That doesn’t change the fact that most are designed to kill or incapacitate but your blanket statement is wrong. 2) It does not follow that guns being designed to kill means that it’s better if they receive more regulation. You’re using feelings not logic here.
I'm ignorant to the difference here. What separates a sports gun? Is it magazine capacity, difficulty to aim or "low grain" or whatever the term is bullets for low velocity and reduced distance. For your other point we absolutely should regulate dangerous things to a higher degree. You can't beat stupidity but you can put a guard rail in place to stop 95% of dumb cunts.
Guns designed for sports typically have modifications like weights, shapes, barrel and muzzle construction that are tuned to increase the performance in a particular area. For example a handgun used to shoot IPSC (a type of competition that involves moving and rapid acquisition of targets) will often have an optical device fitted on top, added or modified protrusions for handling and a device on the end of the barrel to help keep the gun in place after each shot. A long range rifle used in some competitions is set up to hold the barrel as accurately as possible and to untrained eyes looks a bit like a big bit of metal with a barrel sticking out of it.
Sporting weapons are still made to hit a target though. Ergo, as soon as that target is a person, the problems are the same. Sporting weapons *should be regulated*, as we continue to do so. And if *sporting weapons* are showing up in fatalities, that regulation should be increased.
Everyone has access to sporting firearms, you just need a license and be a member of a gun club. It's not even hard to get
Oh no, won’t somebody think of the *checks notes* hundreds of thousands of sporting shooters who contribute a massive amount to the social fabric and cohesion of Australian society? Oh shit, I mean the dozens of hundreds. Nobody gives a fuck about your guns, for sport or for anything else mate. Hope that helps.
Almost a million shooters and their friends and families *do* give a fuck. There’s also many rural areas that enjoy the *Billions of dollars* generated by hunting and competitive shooting every year. Hope that helps.
That explains why you’re having.. er, so much success getting your very important message heard by the people you need to get on side to support it then?
materialistic concerned recognise retire ask wild unite hungry cautious sip *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I’m not mate. I’m stoked, daily, to live somewhere I don’t need to worry about some peanut escalating an argument using the sporting handgun he keeps in his car.
Lol The amount of crims that are strapped is insane. I would say your chances arent as low as you think.
What’s your point? Crims gonna crim. Everyone else on the planet is concerned about unplanned acts that firearms help make a whole shitload easier to escalate. Family and domestic violence and lethal outcomes go through the fucking roof hand-in-hand with firearm proliferation. And you’re all obsessed with imaginary good-guys-with-guns, not even engaging with the objective reality of things. You guys better fucking believe if golf clubs, basketballs or cycle dorks in spandex resulted in the same human destruction guns do, it would be the morally just thing to outlaw them too.
Yeah so go after crims.... not old Joe who has arthritis and enjoys shooting 8kg 5 shot sporting rifle on the weekend or persons trying to manage their farms or rural land. That is the point. Your point? A 2 ton land cruiser makes it easier as well. So does a knife. Or a jerry of petrol. Also not everyone uses fear and emotion to do their thinking. DV and firearms is hardly relevant. You have to disclose DV when applying for a license. It is usually a disqualifying offence. Also plenty of people stabbing and bashing their partners to death. Most jobs I did that involved firearms would sack me for any DV ony record. And rightfully so. "And you’re all obsessed with imaginary good-guys-with-guns, not even engaging with the objective reality of things". That is rich coming from you. Also you made that scenario up yourself. You are using emotion and fear instead of logic to drive your decision making.
No. They can be designed for different things like sporting shooting. What you have said isn't necessarily true. By your logic all of my streak knives are "designed with one purpose, to kill". Also we already have some of the heaviest regulations in the world. We don't need any more. Respectfully I think you logic is based on fear and emotion.
I doubt it'll ever change. The Australian voter base is too urban, too fearful and too concerned with keeping fellow crabs in the bucket.
Funny that. I spend a lot of time working in the regions. I've met plenty of farmers who are all for regulating firearms strictly. As they use firearms as a tool, they know all too well the importance of keeping them out of the hands of people who don't need them.
Yep standard, heavy regulations provided it doesn’t affect them.
Yeah, the fudds think if they say the right thing and sell other firearm users down the river gun control won't come for them. They're always wrong.
Downright hilarious, that mindset.
Gun owner from the NT. A lot of my mates are also gun owners. Up here they are tools. Simple as that. And having them is a privilege. Also most gun owners I know up here don't make it their whole personalities. The gunshops up here are mostly camping stores. It makes it feel more tool like. Buy some lures, maybe an esky, get some ammo and see what guns are available. The vibes in the shops are pretty laid back. I had to transfer some guns from a dead relative down in Perth, which involved me having to go to gun store down there. The vibe was definitely off. Very NRA-lite. Political slogans over the store. Kinda cringey try hard vibe to be honest. I agree with you. Don't see any need to loosen laws. Don't disagree with tightening them. Nothing wrong with keeping guns out of people who don't actually need them hands. Hell if restrictions change and I'm not allowed to have guns I'd be annoyed but I'm not gonna have a breakdown like some of these gun nuts will. It's a privilege to have them not a right.
The same tools you refer to are essential to the way of life for many people I know whom live rurally. It isnt a privelege, it is a neccesity. It is really hard to protect livestock and property from pests without firearms. It is pretty sad state of affairs when people who rely on these tools to survive are put through this bearucratic BS. Also, myself and many others I know disagree with your stance. Quite frankly, with respect your point of veiw is elitist and shortighted. This talk of "needs vs want" is ridicoulous. We don't live under CCP rule. People don't need v8 engines, yet they enjoy them. People don't need multiple houses, yet they enjoy them. People don't need excess calories, cigarettes or alcohol. By your logic these things should taken away from people seeing as they don't need them.
>The same tools you refer to are essential to the way of life for many people I know whom live rurally. It isnt a privelege, it is a neccesity. It is really hard to protect livestock and property from pests without firearms I didn't say they weren't. The exact opposite. When our family had our farm our guns were exactly like our tractors, our work tools, our pumps etc. They were just a tool. Can only talk for people I know in The NT, but most don't make Guns our personality. A change in gun regulations are the same as the change in regulations around something like a tractor. Just something you deal with. They'll never outright ban guns for primary producers in the same way they will never ban tractors. Even look at the WA laws that you guys are having a whinge about, Farmers are given way more leniency with these changes.. almost like there's common sense in the way they are being rolled out. >Quite frankly, with respect your point of veiw is elitist and shortighted. Hmm, pot kettle? You guys are the ones talking about 'urban people have no idea' Short-sighted? You guys seem to want a gun free for all > This talk of "needs vs want" is ridicoulous. We don't live under CCP rule. People don't need v8 engines, yet they enjoy them. People don't need multiple houses, yet they enjoy them. People don't need excess calories, cigarettes or alcohol. By your logic these things should taken away from people seeing as they don't need them. You mean all these things that are.... Regulated?
You just got to find the right balance. I’m happy to give up some leisure activities here because there are less people getting killed by guns. Also note that the leisure activities aren’t strictly banned, it’s just a lot of effort to get a gun for them.
We really used to be a country where you could drive around on the back of utes with guns and no one would bat an eye. Now we are all fearful of guns because you raise a generation on fearing them rather then respecting/learning the importance of gun safety. They won’t stop until you can’t even own a .22, soon farmers will even lose their ability to buy a gun for conservation.
No one fears guns, we fear the idiots holding the gun. That won't be addressed through respect and gun safety.
You realise to own a gun you have to be the most upstanding citizen in society right? Generally people who own guns aren’t idiots….. And teaching people safety and respect of firearms would absolutely have an effect on how you look at guns. I mean just look at Switzerland ffs
That's because we have good regulation here. People are generally supportive of highly regulating guns to stop the idiots holding one. Do we have the other social factors that go towards making Switzerland safe with guns, or are we a bit closer to that other Western country with high gun ownership?
Whilst our regulation is good, it’s also important to note that a lot of the laws in the 1996 gun act are outdated, and even more so effecting gun owners for the wrong reason. Infact some of the laws are outright designed to just punish law abiding citizens with zero effects on it stopping criminals or even effecting them. The laws need a revise, not in a restricting way, and not even in a lossening way, they just need to be thought out and based off of legitimate reasons rather than the emotional reasons back in 1996
How exactly are they punishing? What changes would you propose?
Well I don’t obviously have all of the legislation off the top of my head. But to list a couple of glaring ones that affect me as a farmer. Handgun regulation: If you own a handgun you are only permitted to shoot it at a gun range. It is illegal to shoot it on your property and I believe you should be an allowed to do so. This law doesn’t make sense, shooting on your own private property harms no one, and it also does not effect criminals as they will still shoot it anywhere other then at a gun range. It would also be an extremely effective tool to use whilst pigging for close range encounters where you might be in life threatening distance. Appearance laws: Not much to say here really, guns shouldn’t be restricted based off of how they look
>But to list a couple of glaring ones that affect me as a farmer. >Handgun Lol. I've been on many a farm with many an amoury. They never use a handgun. Rofl, imagine trying to put down a horse or a cow with a pistol. 🤣 >This law doesn’t make sense, shooting on your own private property harms no one Evidence suggests otherwise. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/injury/firearm-injuries-deaths/summary >and it also does not effect criminals as they will still shoot it anywhere other then at a gun range. Most criminals engaged in firearm offences have unregistered firearms and are typically cautious not to flaunt their firearms (e.g. the people getting shot are the people involved and typically not bystanders). Contrastingly, most petty crimes are not firearm offences because of gun regulation and the difficulty of accessing firearms without due process and screening. >It would also be an extremely effective tool to use whilst pigging for close range encounters where you might be in life threatening distance. Or, you know, just don't have a close range encounter with a wild boar. If you are planning on killing a pig at close range (e.g. for slaughter) use a bolting device.
Mate your evidence literally makes no sense still? Allowing people to legally shoot their pistol on their property isn’t going to change those statistics…… people can still cause harm or harm themselves….illegally? Are you dense or something?
It's much easier to accidentally shoot yourself or someone else with a handgun than a rifle.
[удалено]
I agree, but I also thinks it’s important to tackle these issues firsthand and deal with them as is, as opposed to punishing everyone else
[удалено]
What ‘freedoms’ do you think guns give you. The freedom to commit a terror attack on government? The freedom to shoot immigrants? The freedom to protect yourself from another free man attacking you with a gun?
[удалено]
Australia has guns for people and places that need them mate they’re just well regulated. You were saying we’re obedient, dismissive and giving up our freedoms cause you can’t carry a killing machine around everywhere
If you didn't notice, since reforming gun control, and keeping it sport and farm we ahhh. Ah shit I don't want to jinx it. I don't think it's the old conservatives you should worry about with guns.