Anything to address the real underlying problem.
Both things need to happen: the underlying problem can be addressed, which is and has been being done with varying degrees of success - and they can also pick the low hanging fruit and make less deadly weapons available to potential criminals.
Wait… Governments can act swiftly and decisively when an issue arises?
I mean if they did the same in america, americans would just buy 10 more guns out of spite.
Judging by your username you know this from other experiences.
Wow its like australia is a real country and not solely controlled by a cabal of oil companies, mining companies, arms manufacturers, car companies, finance corporations, and tech bros.
Just the mining companies, mostly.
Who?
How can youshare this?
I thought she had it removed from the whole internet how dare you not follow her rules
/s
The proletariat must not be disarmed
Another way of saying this is that all the dead children are worth it so I can fantasize about violently overthrowing a State.
It’s so disappointing to see fools on the left swallowing brain-dead NRA propaganda.
I guess Marx joined the NRA now?
Maybe the guy who thought a dictatorship would happily hand over power to the people was wrong two times?
Marx, like the US second amendment, wasn’t written in the contemporary context.
Marx wasn’t talking about cheap fast-firing weapons being used against a state armed with drones and helicopters, etc.
If you want to project Marx forward, “arms” should be redefined as something meaningful like speech and political power…not the literal ability to coerce your masters with rifles. If 10,000 Americans rose up in arms against the government, 10,000 Americans would be quickly put down with superior arms.
They’ve done this before and it was hugely successful.
Well, they only got 20% of the guns that time, and the vast majority of them were .22 “pea rifles” and shotguns. In fact only 204 automatic weapons were turned in (for a rate of 1 in 1,000). Also they had about 3.2 million registered firearms before the ban, which reduced to about 2.2 million, only to now be back around 3.2 million, but with a lower % of Aussies owning them.
Also violence was already on the downswing before the buyback, both firearm and non-firearm homicides generally lowered from around '79 on, though while firearm suicides decreased, non-firearm suicides increased.
Don’t get me wrong I’m sure the bans effected the rates a little, but not much and they were already decreasing over a decade earlier. It seems that AUS is just not that murderous, and that those who would have shot themselves seem to have just found another way.
20% is hugely successful.
No, it was not. Gun buybacks are never successful.
Look at this bullshit. Here’s a wider angle.
It’s a joke, always is. People turn in their crappy, broken, rusty guns, get paid and the state is like, “Look how great this is!”
Wish they’d do a buyback in my state. Got a couple of busted POS guns I’d love to get paid for.
EDIT: Apparently lemmy doesn’t believe me. Let’s break down the first pic where we can see some detail. Making educated guesses here. Left to right:
- Unknown, broken stock
- Pellet gun
- Unknown
- Pellet gun
- Unknown, but something’s off ?
- Toy
- Unknown, either a .22 or a pellet rifle
- Broken body, snapped off stock
- I think they zip tied two dissimilar gun together? Broken body, hence, the zip ties
- Neat looking antique, WWII era? Older I think?
- Homemade. How To Blow Your Fingers Off 101.
- Bolt laying there as filler?
- Homemade pistol. LOL, you couldn’t pay me to fire that monstrosity
- 120+ yo old shotgun, can’t shoot modern loads or it explodes, missing foregrip, badly broken stock (have 2 such antiques)
- Unknown single-shot rifle
- Single shot, break-open shotgun.
Not enough detail to guess on the last couple. One other thought, you can’t get ammo for much of that old garbage.
What a haul of killing machines!
Not sure what the point of the pics is. Looks like a huge pile of killing devices being disposed of…
Cuz they’re not semi-automatic?
If one isn’t into guns, it’s hard to parse what you’re looking at it. You’re looking at mostly garbage. Those are grandpa’s guns, which may be great!, and I’d bet few actually function. Can’t get a new firing pin or funky spring for that 70-yo shotgun? Turn it in, get paid!
EDIT: See my edited breakdown on that first pic: https://old.lemmy.world/comment/21103440
Anyway, over on /r/liberalgunowners, we’d get a hearty chuckle out of the buy backs and police pics.
Or, look at it this way: Almost every gun pictured is a long gun of some sort. In America, long guns, including AR-15s, are used in ~4% of gun deaths (including suicides, weirdly enough). It’s the pistols people kill with. See any pistols?
I don’t know why you act like taking old, crappy guns out of circulation isn’t meaningful. Just because assault rifles are involved in the biggest and most horrific shootings doesn’t mean that no harm is done with more mundane weapons. It seems plausible to me that old shitty guns are the very ones that kids find lying about the garage, or that get sold under the table to who knows what criminal, or that misfire and injure someone during legit usage.
Victoria already has some amnesty bins that could be repurposed.
Disarming all the people who “didn’t” shoot up a beach won’t bring those victims back, and it won’t stop motivated extremists from doing it again. The kind of folks who commit atrocities like this just won’t bother participating in the buyback.
I’m curious what kind of indicators might have been present that police or others in the community might have missed; violent rhetoric on social media, a sudden interest in guns by somebody who previously wasn’t into them, etc.
Terribly incorrect and it absolutely will.
The (realistic) goal isn’t to bring people back (why even say that?) or reduce crime to zero…it’s to reduce potential harm.
You don’t even need to look past this attack to see that gun control saved lives: had the shooters been armed with high-capacity high-volume weapons available in the USA, for example, they could have killed scores more people. If, in the next attack, shooters have access to less lethal weapons…less people will die.
It’s a common mistake to assume that gun buybacks are being proposed as a solution. The solutions being proposed are a set of laws/policies to tighten gun controls, like who’s allowed to buy guns, what guns are allowed to be owned and how many, improving checks and mitigating newer loopholes.
Tighter gun controls are shown to reduce mass shootings. In Australia, the laws have loosened a lot since the big wave of gun laws in 1996. The buyback program is a consequence of bringing people in line with the new laws.
The realistic goal is not to make it absolutely impossible for a motivated extremist with lots of resources to plan and commit a mass shooting, it’s to make it much harder to prepare to do and to create more opportunities to notice their preparation.
Agree with all.
I’d go further: the goal of legislation like this isn’t to reduce gun crime at all, or deal with the intent to murder…that’s dealt with in different legislation.
The goal here is to reduce harm…it makes a huge difference what weapon a criminal has access to when they’re trying to kill people. Gun nuts can’t get their heads around or cope with the difference between a potential mass murderer having a knife and a fully automatic weapon. They’ll change the subject.
We disarmed the UK after two shootings. And restricted certain fertilisers after bombings
Now they just use knives which are a lot less lethal
Bingo. But good luck pinning a gun nut down and having a conversation about the lethality of the weapon.
And vans
Sure, buy back LEGAL guns from people, so they cant defend themselves against ILLEGAL guns and thugs operating them. There is no logic there, just nonsence and probably greed, so they can sell those guns elsewhere for profit.
Decisions made by retards.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and ask a couple good faith questions:
Do you think it matters what type of weapon a potential mass murderer has access to?
Do you think more or less people would have died if the shooters in this attack had high capacity high ROF weapons available in the US, for example?
except you’re logic fails in the past. The dude with the gun got subdued by the unarmed dude. And in America a bunch of dudes with guns with license to kill didn’t stop the killing of children in Uvalde.
That’s because the police kept them out.
When there’s a school shooting, rather than the police, there needs to be an amber alert that tells every “good guy with a gun” in the neighbourhood to run in guns blazing.
/s
Don’t joke. This legislation is on the verge is the US.
The guns used in the attack where legal.
“Legal” is very broad. Was it really according to ALL procedures? Was there insider who let things slip? Were there background checks? You wont know all the details. I stand by what I said. Taking legal guns doesnt fucking help anybody, it only makes it worse.
Lol what? “Legal” is very broad"? How??
Legal means legal. It means one of them had permits for the guns. People in Australia have shotguns and rifles for hunting same as everywhere else. You don’t need ISIS people inside the administration to get permits. Taking away legal guns used in those attacks would absolutely help.
Why so many down votes ?
Do you guys realize that legal guns cost like $600, and far more than $1000 for sport competitors…?
The gov will be like the best I can do is $20 and a sticker 🏅
They bought 'em at market rate last time…
deleted by creator
