Comment on Gun buyback deadline expires with most states still refusing to sign on
MisterFrog@aussie.zone 2 days agoYou’ve left out a fourth group who is probably much bigger than the first 2, as a subset of the the 3rd.
People who generally think uncessary access to guns is not desirable. Farming, military, land management, and only in numbers that are actually needed.
I don’t think it’s a stretch to say the average person looks at the US and thinks: yeah, that’s dumb.
Ask the average person on the street what they think of the buyback after port Arthur. It’s overwhelmingly: yeah, obviously good.
I’m willing to be they feel the same about this buy back back, but with everything going on, it’s not exactly top of mind.
I think you woefully underestimate how anti-gun the majority of the population is. Even if most people don’t have much time to really engage with it.
The amount of money it’ll cost is pennies in the grand scheme of things. Hence why we all aren’t even paying attention.
Mountaineer@aussie.zone 2 days ago
I was indeed speaking in generalisations, we could split it even further into hundreds of little sub-groups.
Those who are anti hunting, but pro gun vs those that are pro hunting but anti gun for instance.
The amount of people who are actively pro gun in any form is bigger than the group who are ACTIVELY anti gun.
And both of those together are outnumbered 20:1 by people who either don’t care at all or non active.
this?
This is bait.
MisterFrog@aussie.zone 1 day ago
It’s just my opinion. I just don’t see what the fuss about a 6 gun limit could possibly be (iirc that’s the limit sought by the federal government).
But I’m not requiring you to answer it
Mountaineer@aussie.zone 1 day ago
I’ve already had to justify each purchase to the registrar individually, just like everyone else with guns in Australia.
Placing an arbitrary limit on the purchase of something you have to individually justify is silly.
Just like a golfer doesn’t use a wood when they’re on the green in golf, and “mum” doesn’t use a semi trailer to drop the kids to school; a hunter doesn’t use an air rifle to hunt foxes.
Or at least, I don’t.
If I wanted an air rifle capable of humanely dispatching a fox, I’d need to apply for a permit to acquire this snowflake 50cal single-shot-with-a-scuba-tank abomination.
And part of that is justifying why one of my existing firearms can’t do the job in question.
And even if that’s approved, I have to consider my storage obligations; because quantities and categories impact your storage requirements.
Which are subject to inspection, failure of which can cost your licence, forfeiture of your firearms and fines.
The /average/ gun owner doesn’t have 6 now, it’s a pain in the ass.
And frankly, none of your business or concern.
Mmm, bait.
MisterFrog@aussie.zone 17 hours ago
Thanks for sharing the above, seems pretty robust to the uninitiated. And provided your doing it for work or something else necessary, I sympathise for the annoyance it causes you and other law abiding licence holders.
Though since by your reckoning people clearly don’t bother getting more than 6 because it’s a pain in the arse, is it so terrible to have such a limit?
What more than 6 uses do you really NEED a gun for? Damn right that it should be justified.
I will concede a bit, that perhaps 6 is an arbitrary limit, and could have each additional licence approved on case-by-case basis instead, but I know of people by 1 degree of separation who really should not have had a gun in the first place (and who’s licences were later revoked if my understanding is correct), it makes sense to at least limit how many guns they have on-hand to minimise the real risk to the community.
It’s also my understanding that the Bondi Massacre was perpetrated by 2 people, a licence holder with many guns and the other who wasn’t a licence holder. Having access to multiple guns made the massacre far more deadly. And he literally had it for RECREATIONAL purposes. Sorry, guns for recreation can get fucked.
Call me when other hobbies cause a risk to other people in such a way, and only call if you think that hobby shouldn’t be regulated…
Hard disagree. Guns are dangerous, and should be regulated. Yes, it’s an inconvenience for the majority of law abiding gun owners, but sorry, that’s not how society works.
It’s a balance between freedom from and freedom to. Just like major hazard facilities are heavily regulated (my line of work).
We don’t want it to be easy. Annoying, for sure, but well worth it to massively reduce mass shootings. gl;hf trying to convince the average Australian otherwise when the counter-example is very prominent (USA)
In conclusion, we just have a difference of opinion. Mine is that a max of 6 isn’t very restrictive. I also think it’s insane that recreation is still allowed.
Guns are necessary for work and wildlife/feral animal management (and other legitimate things).
Guns for fun are unnecessary and I don’t care if it’s people’s hobby. Get a new hobby.
Thanks for your time, and apologies for my unpleasantness.