5 ms·

The problem with this is the number of guns in Australia has increased despite the buyback. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australia-more-guns-now-than

The problem with this is the number of guns in Australia has increased despite the buyback. https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australia-more-guns-now-than-before-port-arthur/ https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/australia-more-guns-n...

spicyusername 4y ago
Its clear from the article that the objective of the buyback program was to lower the volume of certain kinds of guns, not all guns. > One of the most significant provisions of the NFA was a flat-out ban on certain kinds of guns, such as automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. But there were already a number of such guns in circulation in Australia, and the NFA required getting them off the streets.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  Semiautomatic and shotguns are still quite popular in Australia. It is hard to get an exact breakdown since many Australians own them illegally though. There is a possibility there are more of these type guns than before. The only other type of guns are bolt action and revolvers. I just don't think there was a massive increase in ownership of those, but if you have any stats I would love to see them.
olliej 4y ago
The number of automatic weapons dropped through the floor. There have been no mass killings without automatic weapons (they're kind of necessary). That said I agree this article is bad, and the authors should feel bad, they've clearly gone in with the goal of making the story "and the guns all went away" [edit: sorry, I just saw who I replied to, and that was unintentional - I in no intent meant to be stalking or anything, many apologies]
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  >The number of automatic weapons dropped through the floor. Do you have any numbers on this? As far as I know Australia had almost no automatic weapons prior to this buyback. >There have been no mass killings without automatic weapons (they're kind of necessary). This is just not true. Automatic weapons are very rarely (never?) used in mass killings. I think you are confusing semiautomatic (pull the trigger and one bullet is fired) and automatic (pull the trigger and bullets continue to shoot).
  - olliej 4y ago
    As I said in my other reply, to the majority of people, and especially in the context of gun control, the distinction between fully and semi automatic isn’t relevant, the relevant bit is the “automatic” part of the description, which you’ll note is present in both descriptions. Sorry for being petulant but I’m tired of people defending americas failed response to gun violence with claims that gun control does nothing, when literally every other country that said enough was enough, introduced strict gun control and had immediate reduction, even complete cessation, in mass killings. Yes gun control doesn’t solve all problems, but that’s like saying seatbelts are pointless because they don’t save you if you die when the handbrake fails and the car crushes you into a wall.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      If somebody has no clue what they are even talking about (difference between semiautomatic and automatic) it is hard to take their arguments seriously. It doesn't really matter if a gun ban could save every single life. Gun owners in the US won't give up their guns. In other countries it is possible to restrict the right, but it is too enshrined in American culture. If there was a serious attempt to ban guns there would either be civil war or secession of a large number of states. It is just not going to happen so talking about it is irrelevant.
- yucky 4y ago
  >The number of automatic weapons dropped through the floor. There are almost no automatic weapons in circulation in the US and most people have never seen one in real life. Perhaps you mean semi-automatic? If so, that describes most guns other than revolvers and most shotguns. >There have been no mass killings without automatic weapons (they're kind of necessary). The truth is literally the exact opposite of this. There hasn't been a mass shooting with an automatic weapon in decades. The closest we have seen was the Las Vegas shooter who basically modified his semi-auto's with a bump stock which is illegal to buy now. Also, the deadliest school shooting in US history was done by a student at Virginia Tech named Seung-Hui Cho and all he had was two handguns.
  - olliej 4y ago
    Ok, to everyone except people who seem to believe that guns are the solution to every problem, given the context there is no difference between automatic and semiautomatic. The only thing that matters is the ability to fire sufficiently quickly to kill lots of kids. I understand that for many Americans, the ability to play weekend warrior[1] takes priority over the risk of dozens of dead kids, but it does seem that the majority of even Americans prefer alive kids to dead ones. [1] noting of course that weekend warriors are generally unwilling to actually do anything that puts them in danger to defend the country, they just want to shoot things.
    - yucky 4y ago
      >Also, the deadliest school shooting in US history was done by a student at Virginia Tech named Seung-Hui Cho and all he had was two handguns. See above (emphasis added).

spicyusername 4y ago

Its clear from the article that the objective of the buyback program was to lower the volume of certain kinds of guns, not all guns. > One of the most significant provisions of the NFA was a flat-out ban on certain kinds of guns, such as automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. But there were already a number of such guns in circulation in Australia, and the NFA required getting them off the streets.

_-david-_ 4y ago
Semiautomatic and shotguns are still quite popular in Australia. It is hard to get an exact breakdown since many Australians own them illegally though. There is a possibility there are more of these type guns than before. The only other type of guns are bolt action and revolvers. I just don't think there was a massive increase in ownership of those, but if you have any stats I would love to see them.

olliej 4y ago

The number of automatic weapons dropped through the floor. There have been no mass killings without automatic weapons (they're kind of necessary). That said I agree this article is bad, and the authors should feel bad, they've clearly gone in with the goal of making the story "and the guns all went away" [edit: sorry, I just saw who I replied to, and that was unintentional - I in no intent meant to be stalking or anything, many apologies]

_-david-_ 4y ago
>The number of automatic weapons dropped through the floor. Do you have any numbers on this? As far as I know Australia had almost no automatic weapons prior to this buyback. >There have been no mass killings without automatic weapons (they're kind of necessary). This is just not true. Automatic weapons are very rarely (never?) used in mass killings. I think you are confusing semiautomatic (pull the trigger and one bullet is fired) and automatic (pull the trigger and bullets continue to shoot).
- olliej 4y ago
  As I said in my other reply, to the majority of people, and especially in the context of gun control, the distinction between fully and semi automatic isn’t relevant, the relevant bit is the “automatic” part of the description, which you’ll note is present in both descriptions. Sorry for being petulant but I’m tired of people defending americas failed response to gun violence with claims that gun control does nothing, when literally every other country that said enough was enough, introduced strict gun control and had immediate reduction, even complete cessation, in mass killings. Yes gun control doesn’t solve all problems, but that’s like saying seatbelts are pointless because they don’t save you if you die when the handbrake fails and the car crushes you into a wall.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    If somebody has no clue what they are even talking about (difference between semiautomatic and automatic) it is hard to take their arguments seriously. It doesn't really matter if a gun ban could save every single life. Gun owners in the US won't give up their guns. In other countries it is possible to restrict the right, but it is too enshrined in American culture. If there was a serious attempt to ban guns there would either be civil war or secession of a large number of states. It is just not going to happen so talking about it is irrelevant.
yucky 4y ago
>The number of automatic weapons dropped through the floor. There are almost no automatic weapons in circulation in the US and most people have never seen one in real life. Perhaps you mean semi-automatic? If so, that describes most guns other than revolvers and most shotguns. >There have been no mass killings without automatic weapons (they're kind of necessary). The truth is literally the exact opposite of this. There hasn't been a mass shooting with an automatic weapon in decades. The closest we have seen was the Las Vegas shooter who basically modified his semi-auto's with a bump stock which is illegal to buy now. Also, the deadliest school shooting in US history was done by a student at Virginia Tech named Seung-Hui Cho and all he had was two handguns.
- olliej 4y ago
  Ok, to everyone except people who seem to believe that guns are the solution to every problem, given the context there is no difference between automatic and semiautomatic. The only thing that matters is the ability to fire sufficiently quickly to kill lots of kids. I understand that for many Americans, the ability to play weekend warrior[1] takes priority over the risk of dozens of dead kids, but it does seem that the majority of even Americans prefer alive kids to dead ones. [1] noting of course that weekend warriors are generally unwilling to actually do anything that puts them in danger to defend the country, they just want to shoot things.
  - yucky 4y ago
    >Also, the deadliest school shooting in US history was done by a student at Virginia Tech named Seung-Hui Cho and all he had was two handguns. See above (emphasis added).