- cross-posted to:
- news@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- news@beehaw.org
You must log in or # to comment.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lol what? “Legal” is very broad"? How??
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…
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?
Victoria already has some amnesty bins that could be repurposed.
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.
Yes. So the police can begin brutalizing Palestine supporters more fearlessly.
I used to be for gun control. With where the world is going, we all need bazookas soon.
deleted by creator
If you don’t need accuracy, it’s easy to make one.
soz, i deleted my comment so as to not make the obvious even more obvious.
