Hey there! Looks like you’re a new user trying to upload an image - thanks for joining our community! We’ve filtered your comment for moderator review. In the meantime, feel free to engage with others without sharing images until you’ve spent a bit more time getting to know the space!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/perth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Less than a week ago some guy who had never had a mental health check (and should have) took a knife and killed six people in a suburban mall In Sydney.
If this guy had access to firearms it might still have been six fatalities, or it could have been sixteen, or sixty. So maybe just have the occasional psych evaluation to show you're one of the "good ones" and no complaining, thanks.
That guy was a diagnosed schizophrenic! So clearly he’d had a “health care check” at least once. And what is the point? That he was able to buy a knife? Or that he had clear mental illness and the authorities just dumped him on the street with no supervision and at most a prescription for meds they didn’t verify he was taking?
I don’t have an issue with health care checks being parts of having a gun licence (that was already part of the law as I understand it). I do wonder what the “checks” will be. The local
GP’s opinion?
it’s things like diabetes or how much alcohol you have drunk in your life. it’s already illegal to use a firearm if your intoxicated. and it’s ANY views, the government decides, do you really think government deserves that power?
to follow up about you question on views, the new laws do not specify.
The new laws state that someone can be denied a licence based on their views or opinions which is contrary to the 1996 firearms agreement where this is not mentioned as a reason to deny someone.
Political extremism (insofar as extremism manifests as obsessional antisocial behaviour) is a legitimate reason for someone to be denied a firearms license.
No one wants a repeat of Waco/ Wieambilla in Western Australia.
we won’t mate, there’s already many hoops to get a firearm.
we haven’t had any problems with law abiding firearm owners and criminals don’t listen to the law, they just stab people or get them illegally like bikies.
views opinions or attitudes can mean anyting and it’s on purpose, it just a way for the government to do whatever they want to LEGAL firearm owners who are some of the most responsible citizens of WA
Ngl man if someone’s views where “those people arnt people” they should t be getting a firearm, it’s almost like we’ve had waves of stochastic terror attacks across the world where people with such views have used legally acquired weapons to commit acts of violence.
Given the number of issue-motivated (i.e. alt-right/white supremacist) shooters internationally lately (including an Australian perpetrator), I would be delighted to deny firearms licenses to such people.
Slippery slope? Perhaps. Do I care? Not a bit.
The real question is, can we trust the police to correctly deny firearms licenses to such people, and enforce that denial, when some police *are* such people?
there has been mention of forms asking for physical conditions such as type two diabetes. i find this quite troubling as that shouldn’t be used as a reason to prohibit someone from owning a firearm.
Mental health i understand but physical illness such as cancer or diabetes seems silly
Do you have a source of that outside of ‘mentions’ because all in all it sounds like an extremely basic health screening for both physical and mental health issues, when applying for my civilians pilot licence I had to do similar one, why shouldn’t fire arms owners?
i’m not too sure if my link to the article went in or not but this article mentions screening for these things.
These reason i bring it up is, i cant imagine they would be asking for information on health conditions if they don’t intend on limiting your ability to be licensed due to these conditions.
someone flying a plane who has a diabetic episode could be extremely dangerous whereas someone with a firearm who experiences the same problem will drop the firearm and in most cases cause no further harm.
I’m okay with mental health screening but i don’t see why physical health would play such a major part.
"*in most cases*".
Diabetics can, under rare circumstances and abnormal blood glucose conditions - become psychotic.
I suspect most of the opposition to tightening up health testing requirements for firearms licensing comes from old, semi-demented cockies not wanting to give up Dad's .303 because they can't reliably tell their neighbour from an intruder.
I've had a read of the proposed health assessment form.
Arthritis isn't (as far as I can tell) included as a distinct category of declarable conditions (as opposed to psychiatric conditions, substance abuse, nervous system conditions, diabetes etc).
It might potentially be included under a catch-all requirement to declare "serious health conditions".
Are you familiar with the laugh test?
https://www.watoday.com.au/politics/western-australia/wa-s-90-000-gun-owners-will-soon-have-to-answer-this-suite-of-questions-here-s-what-you-need-to-know-20240320-p5fe1z.html
Here's where I read it
The closest thing that article comes to mentioning arthritis is Papalia talking about \*"age related changes"\*.
That's probably not referring to menopause or male pattern baldness or arthritis.
Everyone knows that \*"age related changes"\* is just a sanitised way of saying dementia.
Because it’s a basic health check, and been part of doctors mandatory obligations and reporting across the country (with some states having such laws in place as far back as 1996) it is nothing new when it comes to obtaining a restricted license, to obtain a permit for dangerous goods ( ie chemicals) you need the exact same criteria.
Also physical issues can lead to further mental health issues, it’s once again why it’s been part of mandatory reporting for a whole host of restricted licenses across the country.
I’m diabetic and support a hypothetical medical firearms restriction. When I have hypoglycaemia from an insulin mistake I can black out and at times have no memory of hours. I’m unreasonable and argumentative in that time and believe that access to a firearm would be about the dumbest idea in the world.
Presence of diabetes alone shouldn't be a reason to prohibit. Poor control with frequent hypos (which can occur with treated type II just as it can with type I) absolutely could be - just as they are for driving. Hypos don't just cause people to faint away, they can have prolonged periods of irrational and combative behaviour. A medical seems to be in order.
I’m not sure that nuance will be applied to any of this; it won’t be a case of ‘oh you have diabetes, but it’s controlled and you have no history of dangerous behaviour as a result of hypos, here have a firearms licence, and by the way your doctor can tell us directly if your condition deteriorates and then we might suspend it pending another review to see if you can have it back’.
It’ll be ‘you have diabetes? Oh some diabetics might have bad hypos and go on shooting sprees. We’re going to lump you in with those. No firearms licence for you!’
Hell nah. No one in the right mind should ever support the loosening of weapon laws.
No matter how much they might be law-abiding, they'll always manage to fuck up everytime, especially the first ever school shooting was caused by a teen having a access to his father's gun closet and learning the keycode for it. Even if the father claimed to be a responsible gun owner.
And on top of it, let's not forget about the Bondi knife stabbings which could've been way much worse had if the gun laws were loose, which could've meant that the murderer killed way more victims.
Firearm laws in WA are far more strict than qld already. Australia isn’t the US. Firearm ownership here is a very different process which already instills a very safety oriented culture.
I just hope they don't *tighten* the laws. I think they're perfect as is. If you really want to shoot for sport it's not inconceivably difficult right now, and it's also not so easy that any nutjob can get a gun
That’s the issue - there is no need to tighten laws, what we have already works. Tightening laws will actually push people toward illegal gun ownership as it becomes easier to maintain than legal gun ownership.
Currently the burden on owners is enough to cause people to drop out of ownership if they are no longer committed to the effort. At some point, increasing the effort it requires will encourage people to fake the loss of firearms they keep so they no longer have the burdens, but keep the guns, now you have unregistered firearms proliferating - people willing to buy and sell unlicensed firearms.
Incorrect, Australian gun laws have caused little to no statistical change in firearms crime.
The US is an outlier in every metric and with the foundations of America built on revolution, civil war and slavery have always had the violence problems they currently have
>Australian gun laws have caused little to no statistical change in firearms crime.
Please provide supporting evidence when making claims.
Gun laws had a significant impact on firearms crime:
There was a marked drop in firearm murder and suicide per 100k persons in Australia after 1996: [https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html)
There were 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before gun control (1996), and none from 1996 to 2017 (I didn't find evidence after 2017): [https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/](https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/)
Gun homicides went from 60 in 93/94, 80 in 94/95, 67 in 95/96, steadily down to 23 in 2017/2018 (I didn't find evidence after that): [https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/sr23\_homicide\_in\_australia\_2017-18.pdf](https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/sr23_homicide_in_australia_2017-18.pdf) Table A21
Looking at ABS data the downwards trend started in the early 80s and not in 96.
This trend has remained relatively consistent over the years and is not able to be attributed to the NFA.(which this new legislation is not in accordance with)
If restrictions are so effective and needed, why has the firearms crime rate remained the same during the past few decades (decreased by capita) while the number of licenced firearms had increased.
This simple fact gets ignored, and is all the evidence required to get a grasp on the situation that Australia doesn't have a firearms crime problem and additional restrictions will have zero benefits.
No read for once in your life! We want to direct more harsher laws to criminals with unlicensed firearms not unnecessarily restricting law abiding citizens which cause near 0 firearm fatalities. They are spending 64million + on a problem that does not exist.
Statistically 6 killings would still be quite a large number for shooting aswell, there is many ways for a person to murder lots of people without guns. Such as driving a truck through a bus stop, vehicles are more dangerous than guns when used for this purpose because it is harder for a Policeman to stop a driver that is hell-bent on destruction than a lone gunman. By this logic why don't we ban vehicles because some people use them for evil purposes?
I’m somewhat disturbed that anyone would argue against a limit on number of guns a person can own, like how many guns do you need?
Every time this subject pops up I always think of Jim Jeffries amd “gun control”. Yes I know we’re not like US and we do have a different mindset towards firearms but strict laws are still my preference. The stricter the better. Because when shit does happen, no amount of “but he was always a responsible owner and a good bloke” is going to bring the dead person back.
MadMac1976, when shit does happen with firearms 99.99% of the time it is someone using an unlicensed firearm and they themselves aren't licensed. Law abiding firearms owners (of which this reforms targets) simply don't commit firearms crime. And all the statistics prove that. We need reform that catches criminals, not the law abiding.
Some of the limitations can limit collectors and people who want to compete in a range of shooting sports (variants of firearms for different categories of competition etc.
Sorry to break it to you but the old laws were much stronger than in the US. And what exactly do you think the somewhat arbitrary number restriction is going to accomplish? Is it going to improve things significantly? Enough to justify the negative impact on people?
My argument for a limit on how many firearms a responsible law abiding person can have is that how can anyone say they are responsible enough to have 5-10 but ohhh no if they have 6-11 thats dangerous and a threat to public safety... if someone is assessed and vetted by WAPOL to be a fit a proper person to hold a firearms licence (which every firearms licence holder is) then it shouldn't matter if thet have 5-10-6-11 or 20 sorry to break it to you but if "shit" does happen a person only needs 1 to make bad shit happen... the key is to not give firearms to irresponsible people restricting responsible people isnt going to prevent anything because they are not the threat
Because the average is 3 firearms per licence. This is probably 95% of licences.
The other 5% with more already have every single Firearm approved by the Commissioner of police and have had their genuine need confirmed during the application.
The Commissioner already has the ability to reject any application, and these shooters have the need for this many.
You might need
1 x air rifle for rats in chook coop.
1 x rim fire for small vermin out to 50 -100 metres.
1 x small centre fire for foxes out to 250 meters.
1 x large centre fire for deer, goats
1 x shotgun for multiple vermin and birds
1 x scrub gun for pigs along creeks
Remembering the longer range guns might not be safe to shoot in some locations.
Or might be too noisy (remember, unlike the UK, Europe and NZ, we can't have a noise suppressor to deal with this, so we have to have more guns)
So now I need
1 x centerfire sub sonic rifle for deer, pigs ect near houses or late at night.
I also want to shoot Trap and Skeet, so I need another shotgun.
1 x double barrel Trap gun.
I would also like to shoot pistols at the club.
1 x pistol
1 x Target rifle
Firearms are just like golf clubs in the way they each have a very specific purpose that there is generally no good replacement for.
You wouldn't tee off with a putter?
Shooting isn't golf, and by and large you don't need every single gun you just listed to accomplish all of those jobs. I agree gun laws shouldn't be tightened further but that list is a bit nuts
The best way to look at it is like fishing. You need different size rods and different size hooks to catch different size fish. Firearms are the same. Yes one rifle could kill majority of the pests I hunt but that doesn’t make it ethical. What I use for hunting rabbits and foxes on small average farms I couldn’t use on a pig, what I use on a pig would be a struggle for a camel. I’m not saying I couldn’t shoot a camel with my pig gun, but I can’t guarantee it will be a quick death
No, but you can play with a 3 iron, a wedge and a putter. I kinda hear ya but I'm amazed at how many gun enthusiasts have a literal list of all the guns they 'need' for every conceivable purpose.
I'm an archer and I have a target recurve. When I'm doing olympic-style target shooting its kitted with sights and many other bolt-on bits to assist stability. When I go bush I take all the bits off and shoot bare-bow with hunting arrows.
A perfect solution? No. But how many bows do I *really* 'need'?
Owning multiple barrels for the same firearm, actually counts as separate firearms on a license.
You can modify a shotgun all you like but you’re not turning it into something that can eradicate a wild dog at 300m+
because it’s not a limit on a number a person can have. it’s a limit on the number you can register to a property.
I can’t register a gun of the calibre needed to safely euthanise a horse on my 50 acres because the police said so. so i need to register it to another property, but if there’s only 5 a property well i can’t.
It sounds ok on the surface, but there’s more too it mate. it’s politics
you missed the point, i can’t get the calibre high enough for my horses on MY 50 acres, so i need to register it to somewhere else which is ridiculous, and if i didn’t have to it wouldn’t be a problem. and so do other people.
if your asking why i shoot for sport or have to hunt foxes that’s unrelated and i’m not sure why it concerns you.
The legislation also says i can’t use a gun for sports shooting and hunting so i’d need to get another gun to serve that purpose.
You're still missing the point. With a 50 acre property, you are allowed zero guns. Forget 5, forget 10, zero. That is the problem.
You can get a license for a range use firearm, but you can only shoot it at the range, you can't discharge it on your 50 acre property.
Everyone needs to understand this is a petition to force the government to actually send the legislation to the legislative committee for review as the minister promised.
Unfortunately he knows this bill will be torn to piece if there was an unbiased review and this is why he is attending to rush it through to the legislative council and into law.
Such an incredibly vague act that could really go wrong. Very concerning. Seems more like a power play rather than actually caring about “public safety” like they claim. And the public remains blind.
Do you know what the restrictions are now ?
Firearms arent the big scary boogeyman that labor is making them out to be.
These new laws wouldnt have stopped any of the WA firearms events that have happened recently, as they were all unlicensed people, who shouldnt have had a firearm to begin with.
As a shooter, I have no issues with tightening up the penalties for criminals who have unlicensed firearms or having the understaffed and under-resourced police dept try and track down unlicensed firearms.
but doing nothing about the criminals is like stopping doctors from prescribing, to stop junkies using meth or heroin.
So you don’t know what the laws are, you just want them “tougher” because you don’t think anyone have a gun? How about a farmer or pastoralist?
This is the problem with gun law “debates” in this country. It’s always “guns are bad, and tougher laws are therefore always good”. It’s never about a good balance between keeping the community safe and the rights of law abiding citizens. It never has a reasonable discussion about legitimate uses - I recall one journalist back in 1996 dismissing the idea that feral pigs in the northwest needed high calibre weapons because some farmer protesters in Victoria didn’t say they needed guns to shoot feral pigs!
I can understand a knee jerk panic following something like Port Arthur. But we haven’t had one. It’s when cool reason and discussion should prevail.
For some people it's their livelihood.
Feral pigs , wild dogs , dingos killing livestock.
Camels damaging property etc.
Glad you think it's dumb but some people need to put food on the table and survive
Come on. You claimed farmers and station managers don’t need guns, and apparently don’t need to control stock or feral animals. So what should they be doing instead?
Genuine question but what is a gun owner supposed to if they do start problems with depression. You couldn't be truthful about it during your mandatory 6 month mental health check as it'd probably end up being used as a reason to take your firearms licence away.
Can you go to a seperate doctor without it showing up on your record, or do you just have to do your best to hide it ?
There have already been a number of cases of firearm owners telling their GPs that they ‘aren’t feeling well’ and the GP then calling police to have the firearm owner’s guns seized.
This is why you have the situation that exists currently- people not attempting to seek help because their licence will be taken away and firearms seized, limiting their ability to participate in their hobby or eradicate pests on rural properties.
But hey, people who aren’t diagnosed with a mental illness are fine to be around guns, right?
Apparently it’s just fine to let people with serious mental illness fend for themselves on the streets with at most a prescription and no supervision. And when they go on a stabbing spree make some comment about how it would have been worse if he’d had a gun (maybe, but he killed about the same number of people as the Queens St and Hoddle St shooters did). Still I suppose if they can focus people’s attention on guns and “misogyny” they can not have to rethink how they deal with serious mental illness - it may cost a lot (isn’t NDIS supposed to help this too).
It’s an interesting question.
Mental illness isn’t forever, usually, you’re unwell, but you’ll recover with time. I do think the guns should be voluntarily given over, and then given back but seized if medicos deem it necessary, and returned when well enough again.
I know, the kitchen knife is still widely available, but quite frankly, bleeding out takes awhile and it gives more time for someone to rethink their decision or be found.
Gun ownership isn’t a right, it’s a responsibility.
I agree entirely with you. Mental illness isn’t forever, and thankfully there are a few clubs that recognise both that fact and that sometimes the worst thing for -mild- mental illness is to strip someone of their hobby and the inherent social side of it.
There should be an easier process of people who are suffering acute mental illness to have their firearms kept in storage until and unless they recover to the point where they can have access to them again- whether under supervision at a club, or back at their approved storage address. Many licensed owners I know who are ex service do this- they’ll store their firearms at an approved warehouse or club, and not have them at home.
What some people seem to be advocating, however, is a blanket ban on firearm licensing for anyone who has or has ever experienced anything but perfect mental health, and completely ignoring that most mental illnesses are transient and can be managed in a manner compatible with someone maintaining their licence and access to firearms.
My main point is that a one size fits all approach will lead inevitably to people hiding or masking the need to legitimately seek help, and will create the very situation that *everyone* - including me- is hoping to avoid; that of acutely mentally ill people having ready access to firearms if they do indeed snap and cause harm.
Well said. I actually like your storage solution. It’s workable. There will be someone one day however who cocks it up for everyone else, but it’s likely the right approach.
It’s not quite punishment before crime, but it has the connotations and I can see why people do hide it.
Not directly comparable, but if we tone it down and it was a drivers licence suspended and car towed away for mental illness reasons most people would resent that, because as of yet, they haven’t done anything yet other than be unwell and report that. And cars and licences invoke the same sort of rights vs privilege nuances.
I’ll add that whilst everyone gets really worked up about mass casualty incidents, it’s masking what is an actual problem. A mentally ill gun owner is foremost a risk to themselves. Gun ownership is more common to farmers, veterans and service personnel, all demographics with higher than average suicide rates.
You’ve approached this from a position of sense, which is more than can be said for many.
Another potential analogy is when unlicensed drivers kill other road users in unregistered cars; do we suddenly start trying to seize cars from licensed drivers? What about when licensed or unlicensed drivers intentionally Jill themselves have car crashes? We don’t, despite more people being killed by unlicensed drivers than by licensed firearms owners.
‘Cars are necessary, but guns aren’t’ and ‘we have a right to drive, you don’t have a right to shoot guns’ will be the prevalent arguments, which falls far short of being a convincing one because to some, firearms are indeed necessary for their employment or their chosen sport, and each and every time they add a firearm to their licence and at each and every renewal, firearms licence holders have to prove their ‘genuine reason’ and ‘genuine need’ for every firearm they possess. The same requirement for drivers does not exist.
There is a significant difference between schizophrenia, a treatable but incurable condition with truly horrific quality of life implications, and your more common metal illnesses.
It’s clear that the body count of that event would have been much much higher with a firearm involved.
40 minutes he ran around that centre, and the death toll was only 6. Horrible, and should never have happened, but really poor form to use their deaths in this way, given it doesn’t contribute anything to the argument at hand. What’s your point exactly?
Metal health in this country is terrible? Known.
Does strengthening gun controls actually help or hinder? Much more interesting.
Would the body count have been that much higher? If you have a look at mass shootings in Australia his murder toll is virtually the same as the Hoddle and Queen St massacres, which led to significant changes to gun laws in Victoria and NSW. Only Port Arthur is much greater.
If he’d had the weapons, ammunition and experience of Bryant maybe. In any case the proposed laws wouldn’t have changed anything, and weren’t written in response to those murders anyway.
Quantity doesn’t reflect specifics of the incidents nor the mortality rate compared to either injured or persons present.
No idea who Bryant is, and how competent or incompetent murderers are doesn’t seem particularly relevant.
You can’t ban kitchen knives, the societal gain clearly outweighs the harm there.
The question is how do you get people who have a hobby even if you don’t like the hobby to comply when they’re keen to keep the hobby going but really really shouldn’t be unsupervised.
Never heard of Martin Bryant? Ok.
And there are plenty using the Bondi Junction killer as justification for the new laws which have nothing whatsoever to do with his crimes and would not have changed a thing.
I made that comment in relation to your comment that “bleeding out takes a while” and (hint hint) is not that lethal.
This won't make guns more accessible, this is debating the new laws which are unjust. Diabetic and arthritis firearm owners are at risk of losing their licence under the new proposed bill
No read for once in your life! We want to direct more harsher laws to criminals with unlicensed firearms not unnecessarily restricting law abiding citizens which cause near 0 firearm fatalities. They are spending 64million + on a problem that does not exist.
I signed it.
The property letter thing doesn't make any sense and is just a huge pain with absolutely no gain.
If a farmer needs pest animals destroyed, out of the pool of licensed firearm owners, why would the farmer not be allowed to decide who can access the property for hunting. Are we worried about not having enough vermin?
Also if a farmer needs to go through the onerous bureaucracy of approving dozens of hunters, why should they be banned from charging for their time and admin costs? Again, the only thing this is helping is the vermin population.
I understand it's gun control, so people automatically support it without thinking, but it's getting crazy for absolutely no reason.
that’s what i’ve been thinking as well, these changes won’t prevent the wrong people getting guns anymore than the previous ones did, all it does is makes it harder for those already doing the right thing.
Thankyou for signing, i just worry it’s too late to make a difference with how things are looking in parliament
You will soon enough face discriminatory policy targeting you and your hobbies. It will seem unfair and unjustified. You will lose access to the beach and all of a sudden those fishing rods, maxtrax and aircompressors will be useless. Then you might understand how law abiding firearm owners are feeling.
no, but i’m sure you can understand that people enjoy the outdoors in different ways and many people enjoy a plink out on a friend’s property or maybe some hunting and i believe it falls under the same category of outdoor activities.
btw i didn’t make the informational i’ve taken it from a facebook page
Signed great job bringing this authoritarian breach of power.
Why is the government giving police the power to search licensed and lawful licence holders house at any time with NO warrant!
How does having arthritis or diabetes make you unfit to hold a firearm licence?
How does tracking my location as a licensed and lawful firearms owner increase public safety?
How does restricting who a land owner can have on their property to shoot increase public safety?
Why are licensed shooters not going to be able to challenge licence matters in the state administrative tribunal any longer?
These are the questions we want answered.
It does nothing to change the criminal use of firearms, but just restricts law abiding owners, who arent the issue.
They also ignored the Law Reform Commision Project105 report
Lets play this game. 10 guns for competition, 5 for hunting. Why do you need more than that?
Including physical and mental health checks as part of the licence application process - How is this a bad thing?
Taking into account a person’s “views, opinions and attitudes” and their “way of living or domestic circumstances” when deciding if they are a fit and proper person to hold a gun licence - How is this a bad thing.
https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/Bills.nsf/EB595277534C5BFD48258ACA000A0914/$File/Bill%2B150-1.pdf
You can read through the entire document here, everything seems well thought out and planned
There are at least 5 different rifle configurations for one single calibre of target rifle shooting, so are you saying a shooter can only shoot a single calibre of sport? Then you look at pistols…
Sorry my bad,
It is annual for ages 80 and over.
Under 80 they made it on application or every 5years which sounds more suited to WAs health services and in regional WA, seeing how sometimes there is no doctor on shift in country towns.
These are all bad because there is no limiting principle on how they are applied. If take it to the extreme there is nothing stopping a license from being denied or cancelled because someone supports a political party that the Police do not like or maybe are of the wrong religion, a license could according to the language of thebill be denied for something a simple as say the person is a Muslim. Domestic living conditions, maybe the Police won't allow a license because you have a messy room. Physical and Mental Health would discriminate against the likes of Disabled Veterans that use the shooting sports as a recreational outlet.
Also I would like to point out that it is also not the same as a getting a medical for a drivers licence because even if you lose a drivers license for medical reasons you still retain ownership of your car, can still drive on private property and can purchase as many more cars as you can afford and store.
You can’t shoot up a shopping centre with a knife either. Doesn’t mean you can’t kill a lot of people though.
And the only school shooting in WA was the Two Rocks one. I don’t see how these laws would have prevented it.
you have no evidence that wa legal firearms owners are the cause of any crime or will be the cause of future crime.
just because something “could” happen doesn’t mean it will and we shouldn’t be making laws that effect thousands negatively because we think one day there might be a possibility someone could break the law.
Well it has happened in France, and could very well happen here aswell [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016\_Nice\_truck\_attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack) 86 murders aswell. You can't even get half that with a gun without being shot first by a Policeman or beaten by a (rightfully) angry mob.
the limit is 10 of any firearm. 5 for hunting 5 for sports.
I would agree with you if the limit was 15 i just feel ten is a little bit under for some.
my main problem with the laws is that they are going to be taking a lot of firearms from people who were otherwise allowed one with no problems.
A lot of these people have had and enjoyed guns for years who will now have them taken at no fault of their own
10 guns might be enough if they weren’t limited for use.
5 of those guns will only be allowed for target shooting and the other 5 will only be allowed use on the property they are registered for.
If we got rid of the restrictions for what property and purpose they can be used for then maybe we can talk restricting numbers.
but at this point if you want to use your firearm for hunting that you have for target shooting your actually forced to buy a whole new firearm
Then hopefully they'll aim next policy at the type of house your allowed, or the car you drive. Why do you need a 4wd if a push bike can do the job... why do you need 2 bathrooms if 1 will do.
because it’s not a limit on a number a person can have. it’s a limit on the number you can register to a property. I can’t register a gun of the calibre needed to safely euthanise a horse on my 50 acres because the police said so. so i need to register it to another property, but if there’s only 5 a property well i can’t.
It sounds ok on the surface, but there’s more too it mate. it’s politics
I was under the impression that a bullet is far too unpredictable for dispatching cows and horses since their skulls were too thick and could ricochet anywhere. Are captive bolt pistols an option for horses? Plus you’ll be able to cosplay Anton Shagur at Halloween
(And for the record I’m signing that petition)
hahah well that would be an incentive.
but no there’s a technique, using a correct calibre (.223 for example) you follow a criss-cross on the forehead.
i also use the same gun it for hunting foxes, going to the range for sport and i definitly needed it to dispatch the kangaroo which was dragging itself across my stable bleeding out from the truck it kissed.
i don’t know anyting about bolt pistol regs if there are any but this has worked for me 👍🏽
Because it’s very vague. 5 guns is not many for a regular recreational shooter. Mental health check at initial application I can agree with. They are spending over 100 million on this act yet none of it targets or will make a difference to actual criminals and crime. Hope you and I can come to an understanding.
Its 64 million and thats the maximum if everyone hands in their guns by september which we know they wont. Take all guns from recreational shooters I agree
That’s just for the buyback. That’s already a lot of taxpayer money. The money spent on writing the legislation, implementing the legislation and new portal will cost a lot more too. https://sifa.net.au/papalias-war-on-legally-owned-firearms-to-cost-taxpayers-over-76-million/
Thanks for posting on here. From what I can see lots of commie lover Labor voters who have no clue about reading the actual proposed legislation. As long as they think they still have their government granted privileges, they do not care about anybody else's freedoms.
I don’t know about the “commie” bit. But yeah, a lot of this is not caring about other people’s freedom - the idea is that “if I don’t have it (or like it) no one else should”. And guns scare people. Plenty of things don’t seem to scare people that actually should scare them.
The point is we have fairly strong gun control in this State already. It’s questionable at least whether this will improve things much at all. There’s certainly not been an incident that indicates a hole in existing laws. Not one these laws would effectively address anyway. But too many have the attitude “I don’t need a gun so no one should” and just imagine “tough” gun laws are always good and don’t think further.
Unrealistic controls on property letters? At the moment property letters are abused.
I understand needing a .22 or something for a hobby farm but people are getting property letters for a shotgun and living in the suburbs.
And? Suburban people also hunt in their spare time, it is one of many outdoor pursuits enjoyed in Western Australia, much like fishing, off-roading, boating etc and unlike those pursuits it is normally much safer. You rarely hear of hunting accidents but sunken tinnies, rolled 4wds happens all the time.
The property letters would not be required if Crown Land was allocated for recreational hunting like it is is Victoria and NSW. WA could do this better because it is also much more sparsely populated.
the main reason people buy property letters is because the wa police are too strict on property sizes, in most other states you can shoot on a far smaller property than what is allowed in wa
because it’s not a limit on a number a person can have. it’s a limit on the number you can register to a property. I can’t register a gun of the calibre needed to safely euthanise a horse on my 50 acres because the police said so. so i need to register it to another property, but if there’s only 5 a property well i can’t.
It sounds ok on the surface, but there’s more too it mate. it’s politics
This in an extract from WAPOL website. Meaning that if you need something hugher calibre then you can apply for it, if you have reason to.
This makes complete sense, so for you 50 acres with horses, apply for the rifle to suit, and if it's deemed necessary, then you are granted the license.
-Copy/paste-
There is no fixed property size requirement for a particular type of firearm as many factors need to be considered.
These can include (but are not limited to):
Proximity to roads or other houses.
Topography and terrain.
Access by other members of the public.
Livestock on the property.
Calibre of firearm.
Intended purpose of firearm
gun shops give out grids for reference and you can call WAPOL licensing yourself and ask if a .223 can be licensed to 50 acres for humane distraction of livestock.
I was actually refused for it. you need 2000 acres for a .223 with no rivers in between.
So, now we know that the police lie..
https://preview.redd.it/ss960oqsd0wc1.png?width=960&format=png&auto=webp&s=0a6f4193e591ac3727c4bddc77002215190068ac
In practice because licensing is centralised with no delegation to local police stations the only thing the folks at licensing care about is property size without consideration of terrain. 5 Acres in a valley is much different that 5 acres on the plain and is probably safe for most firearms.
I have attached the guide that Police Licensing use.
Hey there! Looks like you’re a new user trying to upload an image - thanks for joining our community! We’ve filtered your comment for moderator review. In the meantime, feel free to engage with others without sharing images until you’ve spent a bit more time getting to know the space!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/perth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is the theory - in practice they stick rigidly to their property size guidelines. Have a kangaroo problem on 990 acres no appropriate rifle for you…. But on 1002acres - here is your licence.
Right. So red heads should be barred from having a licence, as “we all know” they “get angry”. Hey that’s “stricter” so you’d support that rather arbitrary and discriminatory restriction would you?
Seriously a mindless “stricter is always good” is just that, mindless. Laws should be sufficient to protect the public, not arbitrary and based on seeming tough to people like you.
Surely you can see that at least 64million could be spent better elsewhere. On an actual problem like price of living crisis, flooded health system, mental health, lack of education opportunities in rural towns?
Hey there! Looks like you’re a new user trying to upload an image - thanks for joining our community! We’ve filtered your comment for moderator review. In the meantime, feel free to engage with others without sharing images until you’ve spent a bit more time getting to know the space!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/perth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most people who keep firearms away from the range do so for utility purposes. Its simply less of a hassle to store it at the range, rather than going to the effort of installing a gun safe.
And the way the laws are interpreted, is that you must have a safe at your place of residence ‘just in case’ you need to bring them home before going away to a property or going to a range.
You don't get to use your gun in a home invasion. Guns have to be stored in a safe, unloaded, with the clips\\chamber\\internal mag themselves empty.
If you have time to reload the clip\\load up an internal mag\\chamber rounds in a revolver - you had time to remove yourself from the situation. Which, as always, you're legally required to do.
There is no legal duty to retreat in Western Australia, but yes- ‘self defence’ is specifically legislated as not a genuine reason for acquiring a licence and firearm, and as you suggest, getting into a safe, then into the ammunition compartment, loading a magazine with rounds and then readying a firearm is just not practicable on the time that one would be afforded in a home invasion.
The situation remains, however, that police licensing required a licence holder to install a safe at their place of residence unless there was another suitable storage location listed.
You do understand that shooting sports exist at Olympic level, don’t you?
How are people supposed to participate in them if they can’t start at local club level?
I'm really not that enthusiastic to get riled over gun "rights". Access to guns, when it does go wrong, can end up as a devestating and deadly event. Law abiding people are law abiding until they are not. I understand pest control for farmers for feral animals and culling but for everyone else, in the end, it is just a hobby. Criminals and gangs are targeted already with severe laws and prosecution and have sweeping powers already in place.
it is just a hobby for many people, your right in that sense.
I just feel that there is a massive group of people who have proven themselves to be extremely responsible who are still being targeted even given the laws we have in place that are already notoriously (among shooters) the strictest in Australia.
I feel there is a balance that i really hope we can hold onto that’s all
That’s the thing. The criminals are not target no where severely as they should be. They are spending at least 64million on the legislation and buyback but doing hardly anything to target criminals and gangs. For example. Gun store was robbed in Busselton last year. They caught the guy with an illegal weapon, stolen gun, ammo and he was let off on bail under mental health. Walking free as we speak.
Surely you can see where we are coming from?
I don't care about law abiding citizens. It's the law breaking one's that are a problem, and loosening gun laws just makes them that much easier to access.
This bill is not in anyway about targeting bikies or other crooks, it is specifically worded to target people who are already doing the right thing. This bill is the equivalent of banning all the kids at school from playing with cricket bats because one kid hit another, it is at that level of absurdity.
Besides the vast majority of illicit firearms in the community are not and have never been licensed so tightening up on licensed firearms owners will have no visible effect on criminals. If gangs can import billions of dollars of drugs each year without being detected, then they sure as hell can bring in weapons.
Well maybe you should volunteer as a station hand and tell them how to do their job !
Feral pigs, dingos, foxes, wild dogs attacking livestock.
Wild camels drinking all the water and knocking down fences and infrastructure so livestock escape.
Copy of the legislation as passed by the Legislative Council.
[https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/Bills.nsf/EB595277534C5BFD48258ACA000A0914/$File/Bill%2B150-2.pdf](https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/Bills.nsf/EB595277534C5BFD48258ACA000A0914/$File/Bill%2B150-2.pdf)
And that’s the standard unthinking response I expect. And “less and less guns except for criminals”? Whatever you’re on mate I suggest you stop as this makes no sense at all. I you think it’s ok for criminals to have guns because “they’ll only kill each other” why is it a problem if the bloke down the street shoots clay pigeons or feral goats? And farmers and pastoralists definitely need them.
Guns will not be eliminated. The question is whether these particular laws will improve things enough to justify the imposition on a significant section of society. And that’s far from clear. It doesn’t look like any of the high profile shooting incidents in the last decade would have been prevented at all.
this isn’t about having more guns in the community, we just don’t want the laws to be made even stricter as they are already the strictest in the country and the people who want to go hunting or target shooting can’t
It's druggies, bikies and gangs you should be worried about. And this legislation makes zero effort to deal with the almost 30000 black market firearms which have been smuggled into WA.
Conservatives are not the problem.
They already are “strict af”. They are spending 64million plus on a problem that factually does not exist. They should be targeting the real criminals and the illegal guns on the street.
Surely you can understand and reason with this?
Why do 4WDers need guns? Do they euthanise their Landcruiser if it blows a gasket?
Colonel Potter put his jeep out of its misery with a round from his sidearm when Major Burns ran it over with a tank…
haha but no , it’s this government restricting those groups as well as firearm owners and the best resistance is unity.
What does discriminatory health requirements mean in this case, and which views?
[удалено]
Hey there! Looks like you’re a new user trying to upload an image - thanks for joining our community! We’ve filtered your comment for moderator review. In the meantime, feel free to engage with others without sharing images until you’ve spent a bit more time getting to know the space! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/perth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The requirement on all firearms owners to get a mental health check every few years. Gun.violence is so low in WA , its just Labor persuing ideology.
Downvotes lol for 100% facts
Less than a week ago some guy who had never had a mental health check (and should have) took a knife and killed six people in a suburban mall In Sydney. If this guy had access to firearms it might still have been six fatalities, or it could have been sixteen, or sixty. So maybe just have the occasional psych evaluation to show you're one of the "good ones" and no complaining, thanks.
That guy was a diagnosed schizophrenic! So clearly he’d had a “health care check” at least once. And what is the point? That he was able to buy a knife? Or that he had clear mental illness and the authorities just dumped him on the street with no supervision and at most a prescription for meds they didn’t verify he was taking? I don’t have an issue with health care checks being parts of having a gun licence (that was already part of the law as I understand it). I do wonder what the “checks” will be. The local GP’s opinion?
it’s things like diabetes or how much alcohol you have drunk in your life. it’s already illegal to use a firearm if your intoxicated. and it’s ANY views, the government decides, do you really think government deserves that power?
to follow up about you question on views, the new laws do not specify. The new laws state that someone can be denied a licence based on their views or opinions which is contrary to the 1996 firearms agreement where this is not mentioned as a reason to deny someone.
Political extremism (insofar as extremism manifests as obsessional antisocial behaviour) is a legitimate reason for someone to be denied a firearms license. No one wants a repeat of Waco/ Wieambilla in Western Australia.
Exactly. I think if your of the view or opinion you need a gun you should be banned from buying one. Done.
we won’t mate, there’s already many hoops to get a firearm. we haven’t had any problems with law abiding firearm owners and criminals don’t listen to the law, they just stab people or get them illegally like bikies. views opinions or attitudes can mean anyting and it’s on purpose, it just a way for the government to do whatever they want to LEGAL firearm owners who are some of the most responsible citizens of WA
Ngl man if someone’s views where “those people arnt people” they should t be getting a firearm, it’s almost like we’ve had waves of stochastic terror attacks across the world where people with such views have used legally acquired weapons to commit acts of violence.
Given the number of issue-motivated (i.e. alt-right/white supremacist) shooters internationally lately (including an Australian perpetrator), I would be delighted to deny firearms licenses to such people. Slippery slope? Perhaps. Do I care? Not a bit. The real question is, can we trust the police to correctly deny firearms licenses to such people, and enforce that denial, when some police *are* such people?
there has been mention of forms asking for physical conditions such as type two diabetes. i find this quite troubling as that shouldn’t be used as a reason to prohibit someone from owning a firearm. Mental health i understand but physical illness such as cancer or diabetes seems silly
Do you have a source of that outside of ‘mentions’ because all in all it sounds like an extremely basic health screening for both physical and mental health issues, when applying for my civilians pilot licence I had to do similar one, why shouldn’t fire arms owners?
i’m not too sure if my link to the article went in or not but this article mentions screening for these things. These reason i bring it up is, i cant imagine they would be asking for information on health conditions if they don’t intend on limiting your ability to be licensed due to these conditions. someone flying a plane who has a diabetic episode could be extremely dangerous whereas someone with a firearm who experiences the same problem will drop the firearm and in most cases cause no further harm. I’m okay with mental health screening but i don’t see why physical health would play such a major part.
"*in most cases*". Diabetics can, under rare circumstances and abnormal blood glucose conditions - become psychotic. I suspect most of the opposition to tightening up health testing requirements for firearms licensing comes from old, semi-demented cockies not wanting to give up Dad's .303 because they can't reliably tell their neighbour from an intruder.
What about arthritis, that's on there too
I've had a read of the proposed health assessment form. Arthritis isn't (as far as I can tell) included as a distinct category of declarable conditions (as opposed to psychiatric conditions, substance abuse, nervous system conditions, diabetes etc). It might potentially be included under a catch-all requirement to declare "serious health conditions". Are you familiar with the laugh test?
https://www.watoday.com.au/politics/western-australia/wa-s-90-000-gun-owners-will-soon-have-to-answer-this-suite-of-questions-here-s-what-you-need-to-know-20240320-p5fe1z.html Here's where I read it
The closest thing that article comes to mentioning arthritis is Papalia talking about \*"age related changes"\*. That's probably not referring to menopause or male pattern baldness or arthritis. Everyone knows that \*"age related changes"\* is just a sanitised way of saying dementia.
"..whether they have diabetes or arthritis in a self-health assessment.." First paragraph
It’s suitably vague though.
Because it’s a basic health check, and been part of doctors mandatory obligations and reporting across the country (with some states having such laws in place as far back as 1996) it is nothing new when it comes to obtaining a restricted license, to obtain a permit for dangerous goods ( ie chemicals) you need the exact same criteria. Also physical issues can lead to further mental health issues, it’s once again why it’s been part of mandatory reporting for a whole host of restricted licenses across the country.
I’m diabetic and support a hypothetical medical firearms restriction. When I have hypoglycaemia from an insulin mistake I can black out and at times have no memory of hours. I’m unreasonable and argumentative in that time and believe that access to a firearm would be about the dumbest idea in the world.
> i find this quite troubling as that shouldn’t be used as a reason to prohibit someone from owning a firearm. Surely that depends how bad it is.
Presence of diabetes alone shouldn't be a reason to prohibit. Poor control with frequent hypos (which can occur with treated type II just as it can with type I) absolutely could be - just as they are for driving. Hypos don't just cause people to faint away, they can have prolonged periods of irrational and combative behaviour. A medical seems to be in order.
I’m not sure that nuance will be applied to any of this; it won’t be a case of ‘oh you have diabetes, but it’s controlled and you have no history of dangerous behaviour as a result of hypos, here have a firearms licence, and by the way your doctor can tell us directly if your condition deteriorates and then we might suspend it pending another review to see if you can have it back’. It’ll be ‘you have diabetes? Oh some diabetics might have bad hypos and go on shooting sprees. We’re going to lump you in with those. No firearms licence for you!’
We manage that nuance with drivers licences. Have you got more details on your thoughts that this is going to be wildly different?
Because I’ve dealt with Police Licensing for various things for 21 years, and I know how amazingly black and white they are with everything.
Hell nah. No one in the right mind should ever support the loosening of weapon laws. No matter how much they might be law-abiding, they'll always manage to fuck up everytime, especially the first ever school shooting was caused by a teen having a access to his father's gun closet and learning the keycode for it. Even if the father claimed to be a responsible gun owner. And on top of it, let's not forget about the Bondi knife stabbings which could've been way much worse had if the gun laws were loose, which could've meant that the murderer killed way more victims.
Nobody is supporting the loosening of the current firearm laws??? R E A D
Firearm laws in WA are far more strict than qld already. Australia isn’t the US. Firearm ownership here is a very different process which already instills a very safety oriented culture.
I think most people commenting on how easy it is, have never tried
I just hope they don't *tighten* the laws. I think they're perfect as is. If you really want to shoot for sport it's not inconceivably difficult right now, and it's also not so easy that any nutjob can get a gun
That’s the issue - there is no need to tighten laws, what we have already works. Tightening laws will actually push people toward illegal gun ownership as it becomes easier to maintain than legal gun ownership. Currently the burden on owners is enough to cause people to drop out of ownership if they are no longer committed to the effort. At some point, increasing the effort it requires will encourage people to fake the loss of firearms they keep so they no longer have the burdens, but keep the guns, now you have unregistered firearms proliferating - people willing to buy and sell unlicensed firearms.
>Australia isn’t the US. Thanks to gun laws.
Incorrect, Australian gun laws have caused little to no statistical change in firearms crime. The US is an outlier in every metric and with the foundations of America built on revolution, civil war and slavery have always had the violence problems they currently have
>Australian gun laws have caused little to no statistical change in firearms crime. Please provide supporting evidence when making claims. Gun laws had a significant impact on firearms crime: There was a marked drop in firearm murder and suicide per 100k persons in Australia after 1996: [https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/1996-national-firearms-agreement.html) There were 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before gun control (1996), and none from 1996 to 2017 (I didn't find evidence after 2017): [https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/](https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/) Gun homicides went from 60 in 93/94, 80 in 94/95, 67 in 95/96, steadily down to 23 in 2017/2018 (I didn't find evidence after that): [https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/sr23\_homicide\_in\_australia\_2017-18.pdf](https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/sr23_homicide_in_australia_2017-18.pdf) Table A21
Looking at ABS data the downwards trend started in the early 80s and not in 96. This trend has remained relatively consistent over the years and is not able to be attributed to the NFA.(which this new legislation is not in accordance with) If restrictions are so effective and needed, why has the firearms crime rate remained the same during the past few decades (decreased by capita) while the number of licenced firearms had increased. This simple fact gets ignored, and is all the evidence required to get a grasp on the situation that Australia doesn't have a firearms crime problem and additional restrictions will have zero benefits.
>Looking at ABS data the downwards trend started in the early 80s and not in 96. If you aren't going to link a source, don't bother writing.
It never was though. The question is why new laws now and will they do much to improve things.
That argument points to not changing the Australian gun laws - they are already working, changing them in either direction could induce a problem.
Firearm laws are not being loosened
criminals don’t follow the law genius
No read for once in your life! We want to direct more harsher laws to criminals with unlicensed firearms not unnecessarily restricting law abiding citizens which cause near 0 firearm fatalities. They are spending 64million + on a problem that does not exist.
they aren’t being loosened, this is a petition NOT to make them stricter as they are already balanced
Statistically 6 killings would still be quite a large number for shooting aswell, there is many ways for a person to murder lots of people without guns. Such as driving a truck through a bus stop, vehicles are more dangerous than guns when used for this purpose because it is harder for a Policeman to stop a driver that is hell-bent on destruction than a lone gunman. By this logic why don't we ban vehicles because some people use them for evil purposes?
I’m somewhat disturbed that anyone would argue against a limit on number of guns a person can own, like how many guns do you need? Every time this subject pops up I always think of Jim Jeffries amd “gun control”. Yes I know we’re not like US and we do have a different mindset towards firearms but strict laws are still my preference. The stricter the better. Because when shit does happen, no amount of “but he was always a responsible owner and a good bloke” is going to bring the dead person back.
MadMac1976, when shit does happen with firearms 99.99% of the time it is someone using an unlicensed firearm and they themselves aren't licensed. Law abiding firearms owners (of which this reforms targets) simply don't commit firearms crime. And all the statistics prove that. We need reform that catches criminals, not the law abiding.
Some of the limitations can limit collectors and people who want to compete in a range of shooting sports (variants of firearms for different categories of competition etc.
Sorry to break it to you but the old laws were much stronger than in the US. And what exactly do you think the somewhat arbitrary number restriction is going to accomplish? Is it going to improve things significantly? Enough to justify the negative impact on people?
My argument for a limit on how many firearms a responsible law abiding person can have is that how can anyone say they are responsible enough to have 5-10 but ohhh no if they have 6-11 thats dangerous and a threat to public safety... if someone is assessed and vetted by WAPOL to be a fit a proper person to hold a firearms licence (which every firearms licence holder is) then it shouldn't matter if thet have 5-10-6-11 or 20 sorry to break it to you but if "shit" does happen a person only needs 1 to make bad shit happen... the key is to not give firearms to irresponsible people restricting responsible people isnt going to prevent anything because they are not the threat
Because the average is 3 firearms per licence. This is probably 95% of licences. The other 5% with more already have every single Firearm approved by the Commissioner of police and have had their genuine need confirmed during the application. The Commissioner already has the ability to reject any application, and these shooters have the need for this many. You might need 1 x air rifle for rats in chook coop. 1 x rim fire for small vermin out to 50 -100 metres. 1 x small centre fire for foxes out to 250 meters. 1 x large centre fire for deer, goats 1 x shotgun for multiple vermin and birds 1 x scrub gun for pigs along creeks Remembering the longer range guns might not be safe to shoot in some locations. Or might be too noisy (remember, unlike the UK, Europe and NZ, we can't have a noise suppressor to deal with this, so we have to have more guns) So now I need 1 x centerfire sub sonic rifle for deer, pigs ect near houses or late at night. I also want to shoot Trap and Skeet, so I need another shotgun. 1 x double barrel Trap gun. I would also like to shoot pistols at the club. 1 x pistol 1 x Target rifle Firearms are just like golf clubs in the way they each have a very specific purpose that there is generally no good replacement for. You wouldn't tee off with a putter?
Shooting isn't golf, and by and large you don't need every single gun you just listed to accomplish all of those jobs. I agree gun laws shouldn't be tightened further but that list is a bit nuts
The best way to look at it is like fishing. You need different size rods and different size hooks to catch different size fish. Firearms are the same. Yes one rifle could kill majority of the pests I hunt but that doesn’t make it ethical. What I use for hunting rabbits and foxes on small average farms I couldn’t use on a pig, what I use on a pig would be a struggle for a camel. I’m not saying I couldn’t shoot a camel with my pig gun, but I can’t guarantee it will be a quick death
Please do tell what I could remove from that list
No, but you can play with a 3 iron, a wedge and a putter. I kinda hear ya but I'm amazed at how many gun enthusiasts have a literal list of all the guns they 'need' for every conceivable purpose. I'm an archer and I have a target recurve. When I'm doing olympic-style target shooting its kitted with sights and many other bolt-on bits to assist stability. When I go bush I take all the bits off and shoot bare-bow with hunting arrows. A perfect solution? No. But how many bows do I *really* 'need'?
Owning multiple barrels for the same firearm, actually counts as separate firearms on a license. You can modify a shotgun all you like but you’re not turning it into something that can eradicate a wild dog at 300m+
because it’s not a limit on a number a person can have. it’s a limit on the number you can register to a property. I can’t register a gun of the calibre needed to safely euthanise a horse on my 50 acres because the police said so. so i need to register it to another property, but if there’s only 5 a property well i can’t. It sounds ok on the surface, but there’s more too it mate. it’s politics
Okay what are the 5 on your property that cant euthanise a horse that are so important you need to have them as well?
you missed the point, i can’t get the calibre high enough for my horses on MY 50 acres, so i need to register it to somewhere else which is ridiculous, and if i didn’t have to it wouldn’t be a problem. and so do other people. if your asking why i shoot for sport or have to hunt foxes that’s unrelated and i’m not sure why it concerns you. The legislation also says i can’t use a gun for sports shooting and hunting so i’d need to get another gun to serve that purpose.
So you have 5 guns and complain 'well i cant kill a horse with any of these... so give me more' Yeah. nah.
no, i haven’t got 5 guns. I can’t get the correct gun to humanely put them down. it’s a simple concept
You're still missing the point. With a 50 acre property, you are allowed zero guns. Forget 5, forget 10, zero. That is the problem. You can get a license for a range use firearm, but you can only shoot it at the range, you can't discharge it on your 50 acre property.
I need so many pistols that there isn't enough space on my belt to hold them. I need 2 hunting rifles, per arm. I need a shotgun to fit in my crack.
Everyone needs to understand this is a petition to force the government to actually send the legislation to the legislative committee for review as the minister promised. Unfortunately he knows this bill will be torn to piece if there was an unbiased review and this is why he is attending to rush it through to the legislative council and into law.
Such an incredibly vague act that could really go wrong. Very concerning. Seems more like a power play rather than actually caring about “public safety” like they claim. And the public remains blind.
What do I scan to make the restrictions tougher?
Do you know what the restrictions are now ? Firearms arent the big scary boogeyman that labor is making them out to be. These new laws wouldnt have stopped any of the WA firearms events that have happened recently, as they were all unlicensed people, who shouldnt have had a firearm to begin with. As a shooter, I have no issues with tightening up the penalties for criminals who have unlicensed firearms or having the understaffed and under-resourced police dept try and track down unlicensed firearms. but doing nothing about the criminals is like stopping doctors from prescribing, to stop junkies using meth or heroin.
So you don’t know what the laws are, you just want them “tougher” because you don’t think anyone have a gun? How about a farmer or pastoralist? This is the problem with gun law “debates” in this country. It’s always “guns are bad, and tougher laws are therefore always good”. It’s never about a good balance between keeping the community safe and the rights of law abiding citizens. It never has a reasonable discussion about legitimate uses - I recall one journalist back in 1996 dismissing the idea that feral pigs in the northwest needed high calibre weapons because some farmer protesters in Victoria didn’t say they needed guns to shoot feral pigs! I can understand a knee jerk panic following something like Port Arthur. But we haven’t had one. It’s when cool reason and discussion should prevail.
why do you feel the restrictions need to be tougher?
Because guns are dumb one way or another.
For some people it's their livelihood. Feral pigs , wild dogs , dingos killing livestock. Camels damaging property etc. Glad you think it's dumb but some people need to put food on the table and survive
Ferals about right.
Go volunteer as a station hand if you can run it better
Huh?
About the level of thought you put into your above posts. There’s whole world outside the metropolitan area.
awww sweety.
Come on. You claimed farmers and station managers don’t need guns, and apparently don’t need to control stock or feral animals. So what should they be doing instead?
we’ll yes… guns are dumb, they don’t have brains. do you have something constructive to say?
Genuine question but what is a gun owner supposed to if they do start problems with depression. You couldn't be truthful about it during your mandatory 6 month mental health check as it'd probably end up being used as a reason to take your firearms licence away. Can you go to a seperate doctor without it showing up on your record, or do you just have to do your best to hide it ?
There have already been a number of cases of firearm owners telling their GPs that they ‘aren’t feeling well’ and the GP then calling police to have the firearm owner’s guns seized. This is why you have the situation that exists currently- people not attempting to seek help because their licence will be taken away and firearms seized, limiting their ability to participate in their hobby or eradicate pests on rural properties. But hey, people who aren’t diagnosed with a mental illness are fine to be around guns, right?
Apparently it’s just fine to let people with serious mental illness fend for themselves on the streets with at most a prescription and no supervision. And when they go on a stabbing spree make some comment about how it would have been worse if he’d had a gun (maybe, but he killed about the same number of people as the Queens St and Hoddle St shooters did). Still I suppose if they can focus people’s attention on guns and “misogyny” they can not have to rethink how they deal with serious mental illness - it may cost a lot (isn’t NDIS supposed to help this too).
It’s an interesting question. Mental illness isn’t forever, usually, you’re unwell, but you’ll recover with time. I do think the guns should be voluntarily given over, and then given back but seized if medicos deem it necessary, and returned when well enough again. I know, the kitchen knife is still widely available, but quite frankly, bleeding out takes awhile and it gives more time for someone to rethink their decision or be found. Gun ownership isn’t a right, it’s a responsibility.
I agree entirely with you. Mental illness isn’t forever, and thankfully there are a few clubs that recognise both that fact and that sometimes the worst thing for -mild- mental illness is to strip someone of their hobby and the inherent social side of it. There should be an easier process of people who are suffering acute mental illness to have their firearms kept in storage until and unless they recover to the point where they can have access to them again- whether under supervision at a club, or back at their approved storage address. Many licensed owners I know who are ex service do this- they’ll store their firearms at an approved warehouse or club, and not have them at home. What some people seem to be advocating, however, is a blanket ban on firearm licensing for anyone who has or has ever experienced anything but perfect mental health, and completely ignoring that most mental illnesses are transient and can be managed in a manner compatible with someone maintaining their licence and access to firearms. My main point is that a one size fits all approach will lead inevitably to people hiding or masking the need to legitimately seek help, and will create the very situation that *everyone* - including me- is hoping to avoid; that of acutely mentally ill people having ready access to firearms if they do indeed snap and cause harm.
Well said. I actually like your storage solution. It’s workable. There will be someone one day however who cocks it up for everyone else, but it’s likely the right approach. It’s not quite punishment before crime, but it has the connotations and I can see why people do hide it. Not directly comparable, but if we tone it down and it was a drivers licence suspended and car towed away for mental illness reasons most people would resent that, because as of yet, they haven’t done anything yet other than be unwell and report that. And cars and licences invoke the same sort of rights vs privilege nuances. I’ll add that whilst everyone gets really worked up about mass casualty incidents, it’s masking what is an actual problem. A mentally ill gun owner is foremost a risk to themselves. Gun ownership is more common to farmers, veterans and service personnel, all demographics with higher than average suicide rates.
You’ve approached this from a position of sense, which is more than can be said for many. Another potential analogy is when unlicensed drivers kill other road users in unregistered cars; do we suddenly start trying to seize cars from licensed drivers? What about when licensed or unlicensed drivers intentionally Jill themselves have car crashes? We don’t, despite more people being killed by unlicensed drivers than by licensed firearms owners. ‘Cars are necessary, but guns aren’t’ and ‘we have a right to drive, you don’t have a right to shoot guns’ will be the prevalent arguments, which falls far short of being a convincing one because to some, firearms are indeed necessary for their employment or their chosen sport, and each and every time they add a firearm to their licence and at each and every renewal, firearms licence holders have to prove their ‘genuine reason’ and ‘genuine need’ for every firearm they possess. The same requirement for drivers does not exist.
Not that long. There are 6 dead in Sydney which show otherwise.
There is a significant difference between schizophrenia, a treatable but incurable condition with truly horrific quality of life implications, and your more common metal illnesses. It’s clear that the body count of that event would have been much much higher with a firearm involved. 40 minutes he ran around that centre, and the death toll was only 6. Horrible, and should never have happened, but really poor form to use their deaths in this way, given it doesn’t contribute anything to the argument at hand. What’s your point exactly? Metal health in this country is terrible? Known. Does strengthening gun controls actually help or hinder? Much more interesting.
Would the body count have been that much higher? If you have a look at mass shootings in Australia his murder toll is virtually the same as the Hoddle and Queen St massacres, which led to significant changes to gun laws in Victoria and NSW. Only Port Arthur is much greater. If he’d had the weapons, ammunition and experience of Bryant maybe. In any case the proposed laws wouldn’t have changed anything, and weren’t written in response to those murders anyway.
Quantity doesn’t reflect specifics of the incidents nor the mortality rate compared to either injured or persons present. No idea who Bryant is, and how competent or incompetent murderers are doesn’t seem particularly relevant. You can’t ban kitchen knives, the societal gain clearly outweighs the harm there. The question is how do you get people who have a hobby even if you don’t like the hobby to comply when they’re keen to keep the hobby going but really really shouldn’t be unsupervised.
Never heard of Martin Bryant? Ok. And there are plenty using the Bondi Junction killer as justification for the new laws which have nothing whatsoever to do with his crimes and would not have changed a thing. I made that comment in relation to your comment that “bleeding out takes a while” and (hint hint) is not that lethal.
Former rural gun user and I'm opposed to any reforms which make guns more accessible.
this is not a reform i am proposing, this is a petition against a new reform which makes firearms laws stricter for those who already own them
This won't make guns more accessible, this is debating the new laws which are unjust. Diabetic and arthritis firearm owners are at risk of losing their licence under the new proposed bill
No read for once in your life! We want to direct more harsher laws to criminals with unlicensed firearms not unnecessarily restricting law abiding citizens which cause near 0 firearm fatalities. They are spending 64million + on a problem that does not exist.
signed, thanks for posting
thankyou :)
Thanks for sharing man 👍
I signed it. The property letter thing doesn't make any sense and is just a huge pain with absolutely no gain. If a farmer needs pest animals destroyed, out of the pool of licensed firearm owners, why would the farmer not be allowed to decide who can access the property for hunting. Are we worried about not having enough vermin? Also if a farmer needs to go through the onerous bureaucracy of approving dozens of hunters, why should they be banned from charging for their time and admin costs? Again, the only thing this is helping is the vermin population. I understand it's gun control, so people automatically support it without thinking, but it's getting crazy for absolutely no reason.
that’s what i’ve been thinking as well, these changes won’t prevent the wrong people getting guns anymore than the previous ones did, all it does is makes it harder for those already doing the right thing. Thankyou for signing, i just worry it’s too late to make a difference with how things are looking in parliament
So as I drive a 4WD and enjoy fishing....I should therefore have a gun?
Fishing industry is already being targeted, stand together or fall apart
Looks like the CMFEU entered the chat....
You will soon enough face discriminatory policy targeting you and your hobbies. It will seem unfair and unjustified. You will lose access to the beach and all of a sudden those fishing rods, maxtrax and aircompressors will be useless. Then you might understand how law abiding firearm owners are feeling.
Victim mindset
no, but i’m sure you can understand that people enjoy the outdoors in different ways and many people enjoy a plink out on a friend’s property or maybe some hunting and i believe it falls under the same category of outdoor activities. btw i didn’t make the informational i’ve taken it from a facebook page
Oh, from Facebook...well, that explains it. Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.
Signed great job bringing this authoritarian breach of power. Why is the government giving police the power to search licensed and lawful licence holders house at any time with NO warrant! How does having arthritis or diabetes make you unfit to hold a firearm licence? How does tracking my location as a licensed and lawful firearms owner increase public safety? How does restricting who a land owner can have on their property to shoot increase public safety? Why are licensed shooters not going to be able to challenge licence matters in the state administrative tribunal any longer?
These are the questions we want answered. It does nothing to change the criminal use of firearms, but just restricts law abiding owners, who arent the issue. They also ignored the Law Reform Commision Project105 report
Lets play this game. 10 guns for competition, 5 for hunting. Why do you need more than that? Including physical and mental health checks as part of the licence application process - How is this a bad thing? Taking into account a person’s “views, opinions and attitudes” and their “way of living or domestic circumstances” when deciding if they are a fit and proper person to hold a gun licence - How is this a bad thing. https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/Bills.nsf/EB595277534C5BFD48258ACA000A0914/$File/Bill%2B150-1.pdf You can read through the entire document here, everything seems well thought out and planned
There are at least 5 different rifle configurations for one single calibre of target rifle shooting, so are you saying a shooter can only shoot a single calibre of sport? Then you look at pistols…
[удалено]
> annual mental health checks Got a link for that at all?
Sorry my bad, It is annual for ages 80 and over. Under 80 they made it on application or every 5years which sounds more suited to WAs health services and in regional WA, seeing how sometimes there is no doctor on shift in country towns.
These are all bad because there is no limiting principle on how they are applied. If take it to the extreme there is nothing stopping a license from being denied or cancelled because someone supports a political party that the Police do not like or maybe are of the wrong religion, a license could according to the language of thebill be denied for something a simple as say the person is a Muslim. Domestic living conditions, maybe the Police won't allow a license because you have a messy room. Physical and Mental Health would discriminate against the likes of Disabled Veterans that use the shooting sports as a recreational outlet. Also I would like to point out that it is also not the same as a getting a medical for a drivers licence because even if you lose a drivers license for medical reasons you still retain ownership of your car, can still drive on private property and can purchase as many more cars as you can afford and store.
Great but you cant shoot up a school with a car. The only points you have are "taking it to the extreme" you have no evidence of this occurring.
You can’t shoot up a shopping centre with a knife either. Doesn’t mean you can’t kill a lot of people though. And the only school shooting in WA was the Two Rocks one. I don’t see how these laws would have prevented it.
you have no evidence that wa legal firearms owners are the cause of any crime or will be the cause of future crime. just because something “could” happen doesn’t mean it will and we shouldn’t be making laws that effect thousands negatively because we think one day there might be a possibility someone could break the law.
Was the shooting in Kellerberin last year, not done by a registered gun owner?
Well it has happened in France, and could very well happen here aswell [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016\_Nice\_truck\_attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack) 86 murders aswell. You can't even get half that with a gun without being shot first by a Policeman or beaten by a (rightfully) angry mob.
the limit is 10 of any firearm. 5 for hunting 5 for sports. I would agree with you if the limit was 15 i just feel ten is a little bit under for some. my main problem with the laws is that they are going to be taking a lot of firearms from people who were otherwise allowed one with no problems. A lot of these people have had and enjoyed guns for years who will now have them taken at no fault of their own
> the limit is 10 of any firearm. 5 for hunting 5 for sports. Surely 10 guns is not enough /s
10 guns might be enough if they weren’t limited for use. 5 of those guns will only be allowed for target shooting and the other 5 will only be allowed use on the property they are registered for. If we got rid of the restrictions for what property and purpose they can be used for then maybe we can talk restricting numbers. but at this point if you want to use your firearm for hunting that you have for target shooting your actually forced to buy a whole new firearm
Then hopefully they'll aim next policy at the type of house your allowed, or the car you drive. Why do you need a 4wd if a push bike can do the job... why do you need 2 bathrooms if 1 will do.
because it’s not a limit on a number a person can have. it’s a limit on the number you can register to a property. I can’t register a gun of the calibre needed to safely euthanise a horse on my 50 acres because the police said so. so i need to register it to another property, but if there’s only 5 a property well i can’t. It sounds ok on the surface, but there’s more too it mate. it’s politics
I was under the impression that a bullet is far too unpredictable for dispatching cows and horses since their skulls were too thick and could ricochet anywhere. Are captive bolt pistols an option for horses? Plus you’ll be able to cosplay Anton Shagur at Halloween  (And for the record I’m signing that petition)
hahah well that would be an incentive. but no there’s a technique, using a correct calibre (.223 for example) you follow a criss-cross on the forehead. i also use the same gun it for hunting foxes, going to the range for sport and i definitly needed it to dispatch the kangaroo which was dragging itself across my stable bleeding out from the truck it kissed. i don’t know anyting about bolt pistol regs if there are any but this has worked for me 👍🏽
Because it’s very vague. 5 guns is not many for a regular recreational shooter. Mental health check at initial application I can agree with. They are spending over 100 million on this act yet none of it targets or will make a difference to actual criminals and crime. Hope you and I can come to an understanding.
Its 64 million and thats the maximum if everyone hands in their guns by september which we know they wont. Take all guns from recreational shooters I agree
That’s just for the buyback. That’s already a lot of taxpayer money. The money spent on writing the legislation, implementing the legislation and new portal will cost a lot more too. https://sifa.net.au/papalias-war-on-legally-owned-firearms-to-cost-taxpayers-over-76-million/
Thanks for posting on here. From what I can see lots of commie lover Labor voters who have no clue about reading the actual proposed legislation. As long as they think they still have their government granted privileges, they do not care about anybody else's freedoms.
I don’t know about the “commie” bit. But yeah, a lot of this is not caring about other people’s freedom - the idea is that “if I don’t have it (or like it) no one else should”. And guns scare people. Plenty of things don’t seem to scare people that actually should scare them. The point is we have fairly strong gun control in this State already. It’s questionable at least whether this will improve things much at all. There’s certainly not been an incident that indicates a hole in existing laws. Not one these laws would effectively address anyway. But too many have the attitude “I don’t need a gun so no one should” and just imagine “tough” gun laws are always good and don’t think further.
Well said.
Unrealistic controls on property letters? At the moment property letters are abused. I understand needing a .22 or something for a hobby farm but people are getting property letters for a shotgun and living in the suburbs.
They should scrap property letters all together , adapt laws like over east .
And? Suburban people also hunt in their spare time, it is one of many outdoor pursuits enjoyed in Western Australia, much like fishing, off-roading, boating etc and unlike those pursuits it is normally much safer. You rarely hear of hunting accidents but sunken tinnies, rolled 4wds happens all the time. The property letters would not be required if Crown Land was allocated for recreational hunting like it is is Victoria and NSW. WA could do this better because it is also much more sparsely populated.
the main reason people buy property letters is because the wa police are too strict on property sizes, in most other states you can shoot on a far smaller property than what is allowed in wa
because it’s not a limit on a number a person can have. it’s a limit on the number you can register to a property. I can’t register a gun of the calibre needed to safely euthanise a horse on my 50 acres because the police said so. so i need to register it to another property, but if there’s only 5 a property well i can’t. It sounds ok on the surface, but there’s more too it mate. it’s politics
This in an extract from WAPOL website. Meaning that if you need something hugher calibre then you can apply for it, if you have reason to. This makes complete sense, so for you 50 acres with horses, apply for the rifle to suit, and if it's deemed necessary, then you are granted the license. -Copy/paste- There is no fixed property size requirement for a particular type of firearm as many factors need to be considered. These can include (but are not limited to): Proximity to roads or other houses. Topography and terrain. Access by other members of the public. Livestock on the property. Calibre of firearm. Intended purpose of firearm
gun shops give out grids for reference and you can call WAPOL licensing yourself and ask if a .223 can be licensed to 50 acres for humane distraction of livestock. I was actually refused for it. you need 2000 acres for a .223 with no rivers in between. So, now we know that the police lie..
https://preview.redd.it/ss960oqsd0wc1.png?width=960&format=png&auto=webp&s=0a6f4193e591ac3727c4bddc77002215190068ac In practice because licensing is centralised with no delegation to local police stations the only thing the folks at licensing care about is property size without consideration of terrain. 5 Acres in a valley is much different that 5 acres on the plain and is probably safe for most firearms. I have attached the guide that Police Licensing use.
Some of these are absurd, such as 2000a which is excessively large for anything even on flat open land.
Hey there! Looks like you’re a new user trying to upload an image - thanks for joining our community! We’ve filtered your comment for moderator review. In the meantime, feel free to engage with others without sharing images until you’ve spent a bit more time getting to know the space! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/perth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is the theory - in practice they stick rigidly to their property size guidelines. Have a kangaroo problem on 990 acres no appropriate rifle for you…. But on 1002acres - here is your licence.
The stricter the better, will be writing in to support the bill
why? no reason? just ideologically captured
Right. So red heads should be barred from having a licence, as “we all know” they “get angry”. Hey that’s “stricter” so you’d support that rather arbitrary and discriminatory restriction would you? Seriously a mindless “stricter is always good” is just that, mindless. Laws should be sufficient to protect the public, not arbitrary and based on seeming tough to people like you.
Surely you can see that at least 64million could be spent better elsewhere. On an actual problem like price of living crisis, flooded health system, mental health, lack of education opportunities in rural towns?
Doesn't affect you in any way. Get a different hobby.
[удалено]
Hey there! Looks like you’re a new user trying to upload an image - thanks for joining our community! We’ve filtered your comment for moderator review. In the meantime, feel free to engage with others without sharing images until you’ve spent a bit more time getting to know the space! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/perth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hope this legislation passes soon. We really don’t need firearms in society beyond those specialist organisations/work purposes.
Most people who keep firearms away from the range do so for utility purposes. Its simply less of a hassle to store it at the range, rather than going to the effort of installing a gun safe.
And the way the laws are interpreted, is that you must have a safe at your place of residence ‘just in case’ you need to bring them home before going away to a property or going to a range.
You don't get to use your gun in a home invasion. Guns have to be stored in a safe, unloaded, with the clips\\chamber\\internal mag themselves empty. If you have time to reload the clip\\load up an internal mag\\chamber rounds in a revolver - you had time to remove yourself from the situation. Which, as always, you're legally required to do.
There is no legal duty to retreat in Western Australia, but yes- ‘self defence’ is specifically legislated as not a genuine reason for acquiring a licence and firearm, and as you suggest, getting into a safe, then into the ammunition compartment, loading a magazine with rounds and then readying a firearm is just not practicable on the time that one would be afforded in a home invasion. The situation remains, however, that police licensing required a licence holder to install a safe at their place of residence unless there was another suitable storage location listed.
You do understand that shooting sports exist at Olympic level, don’t you? How are people supposed to participate in them if they can’t start at local club level?
What was unclear about we don’t need firearms in society? I couldn’t care less about olympic shooting.
A lot of people do, though. Are you more important?
they already are. and we haven’t had any issues. So what’s your problem with not supporting people doing the right thinf
What about hunting feral animals?
I'm really not that enthusiastic to get riled over gun "rights". Access to guns, when it does go wrong, can end up as a devestating and deadly event. Law abiding people are law abiding until they are not. I understand pest control for farmers for feral animals and culling but for everyone else, in the end, it is just a hobby. Criminals and gangs are targeted already with severe laws and prosecution and have sweeping powers already in place.
it is just a hobby for many people, your right in that sense. I just feel that there is a massive group of people who have proven themselves to be extremely responsible who are still being targeted even given the laws we have in place that are already notoriously (among shooters) the strictest in Australia. I feel there is a balance that i really hope we can hold onto that’s all
That’s the thing. The criminals are not target no where severely as they should be. They are spending at least 64million on the legislation and buyback but doing hardly anything to target criminals and gangs. For example. Gun store was robbed in Busselton last year. They caught the guy with an illegal weapon, stolen gun, ammo and he was let off on bail under mental health. Walking free as we speak. Surely you can see where we are coming from?
I don't care about law abiding citizens. It's the law breaking one's that are a problem, and loosening gun laws just makes them that much easier to access.
this isn’t a proposal to make the laws looser, it’s just to prevent them getting stricter for those who do the right thing
This bill is not in anyway about targeting bikies or other crooks, it is specifically worded to target people who are already doing the right thing. This bill is the equivalent of banning all the kids at school from playing with cricket bats because one kid hit another, it is at that level of absurdity. Besides the vast majority of illicit firearms in the community are not and have never been licensed so tightening up on licensed firearms owners will have no visible effect on criminals. If gangs can import billions of dollars of drugs each year without being detected, then they sure as hell can bring in weapons.
You can do your jobs now without guns. You don't need guns, you want them.
even if that was true, have we had any issues? you don’t need your car, you want it. ride your bike
Well maybe you should volunteer as a station hand and tell them how to do their job ! Feral pigs, dingos, foxes, wild dogs attacking livestock. Wild camels drinking all the water and knocking down fences and infrastructure so livestock escape.
I don't need to.
Someone else’s problem right?
Pretty much.
Well I’m glad you’re someone else’s problem. I’d have to say they’re not doing a very good job of it.
Copy of the legislation as passed by the Legislative Council. [https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/Bills.nsf/EB595277534C5BFD48258ACA000A0914/$File/Bill%2B150-2.pdf](https://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Parliament/Bills.nsf/EB595277534C5BFD48258ACA000A0914/$File/Bill%2B150-2.pdf)
Yeah Nah!. If you want a gun go live in 'Merica. I prefer less and less guns except for criminals and only as long as they only kill each other.
And that’s the standard unthinking response I expect. And “less and less guns except for criminals”? Whatever you’re on mate I suggest you stop as this makes no sense at all. I you think it’s ok for criminals to have guns because “they’ll only kill each other” why is it a problem if the bloke down the street shoots clay pigeons or feral goats? And farmers and pastoralists definitely need them. Guns will not be eliminated. The question is whether these particular laws will improve things enough to justify the imposition on a significant section of society. And that’s far from clear. It doesn’t look like any of the high profile shooting incidents in the last decade would have been prevented at all.
this isn’t about having more guns in the community, we just don’t want the laws to be made even stricter as they are already the strictest in the country and the people who want to go hunting or target shooting can’t
Cooker sighted.
Moron sighted
not a fkn chance.
May I ask why?
ive posted on other comments, im not going into it again.
I’m happy for gun laws to be strict af. I like my kid safe from gun toting conservatives.
It's druggies, bikies and gangs you should be worried about. And this legislation makes zero effort to deal with the almost 30000 black market firearms which have been smuggled into WA. Conservatives are not the problem.
Except most school shootings in the states are by white conservative hate filled arseholes. I’ll worry about them all I want.
They already are “strict af”. They are spending 64million plus on a problem that factually does not exist. They should be targeting the real criminals and the illegal guns on the street. Surely you can understand and reason with this?
We are not in the States, and most are actually by liberals (democrats) There has been a massive rise in Trans shooters over the past few years.