7 ms·

Australia's gun laws allow pump/lever/bolt action rifles for hunting along with shotguns for rural home defense (primary producers and farm workers can buy pump

Australia's gun laws allow pump/lever/bolt action rifles for hunting along with shotguns for rural home defense (primary producers and farm workers can buy pump shotguns). Pistols and anything semiautomatic are mostly restricted to occupations that require them. There's also exceptions for sport shooters, so rural people can start an organized gun club and actively train in order to own shotguns or pistols (a "well-regulated militia"?). This means, though, that an 18 year old is only going to be able to buy a bolt action rifle without coming under some extra scrutiny of having to join a sport shooting club.

germinalphrase 4y ago
Which makes me wonder if putting state level structure around “militias” (open entry for anyone over 18, govern some aspects of sport shooting and training) would be an effective entry to reducing the number of semiautomatic weapons in circulation (though the numbers there are so staggering that it feels somewhat pointless).
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  FYI this isn't super different from how it's culturally done in certain circles in the US (although it's not universal). When I was a young teen I took a hunter's education course that covered ethical hunting, firearm safety, first aid, basic wilderness survival, etc. I would support making that sort of requirement for owning firearms universal, but I would anticipate that a lot of people would view this as a registry which is not a very attractive prospect for a lot of people.
  - germinalphrase 4y ago
    This is my experience as well. I grew up in a small midwestern town. I continue to shoot and do a little bit of hunting, but the temperature around firearms and gun ownership really took a turn in the 90’s. Lots of wild conversations happening down at the conservation club. Edit: I guess my initial comment was more about a cultural/legal framework for reasonably reducing the number of semiautomatic weapons in the general populace.
    - Tool_of_Society 4y ago
      yeah the 90s is when the term "assault weapon" was pushed into the narrative in an attempt to blur the lines between a semiautomatic hunting rifle and an actual assault rifle. So that's how we end up with people calling hunting rifles "assault rifles/weapons" or "military grade weaponry". It's like dude a freaking blunderbuss is military grade weaponry. The most popular hunting rounds in the USA were originally designed for military use.
      - germinalphrase 4y ago
        Right. There really isn’t a clear difference between the two, so attempting to draw that line is foolhardy. That said, the lethality advantage of semiautomatic weapons over manually operated is obvious.
        pclmulqdq 4y ago
        There is a very clear distinction between the two. Assault rifles have automatic (or select-fire) capabilities. One trigger pull can produce many bullets. Semi-automatic rifles, which were later called "assault weapons," can only produce one bullet per trigger pull. What makes them semi-automatic is that they automatically reload after firing. Many other types of guns also do this (eg double-action revolvers) and many take minimal movement to reload (eg lever-action and bolt-action rifles). This is a very big difference. A commercial semiautomatic rifle is only slightly more lethal than a bolt-action rifle. An assault rifle is much more lethal than both.
        germinalphrase 4y ago
        I didn’t downvote, but I don’t believe your chosen definition is widely accepted. Further, many elite soldiers will say that they rarely would put their weapons in full auto in a fire fight. I’m certainly not one of them and can’t speak to it, but I’ll take their word their semi-auto rifles are plenty lethal.
        4y ago
  - bluGill 4y ago
    There are a number of people who will use such a system as a registry they can abuse and once in a while they get political power.
    - esrauch 4y ago
      This seems like borderline deranged paranoia to me; what do you expect these powerful people to do given the registry of automatic gun owners? Are you expecting a WW2 French Revolution style situation where the moral resistance will be stronger because of the unregistered firearms? Most of these guns are bought on credit or debit cards, so the information about big ticket gun buyers probably unregulated available through Palantir or whoever.
      - coredog64 4y ago
        It doesn’t take any paranoia. There’s been several instances of journalists using FOIA requests to get the names and addresses of firearm owners and then publishing them. It just happened again in California post the recent USSC decision: An LA journalist requested the names and addresses of current permit holders.
        esrauch 4y ago
        And then what bad thing happened? And if FOIA is really the problem (not the government knowing) then the registry could be made legally exempt from FOIA. The government keeps databases including all of your income (IRS) and your religion (the Census) but random journalists can't get the information.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        elmomle 4y ago
        I believe the paranoia is misplaced. I'm not aware of a single instance in the whole history of the US where a citizen was targeted by members of the public primarily on the basis of their owning a gun (or holding a permit)--are you?
  - chasd00 4y ago
    Hunter’s Ed was included in my HS Agriculture class, we all received the little card that came with completion of the course too. In rural areas it’s pretty standard stuff.
- wahern 4y ago
  > Which makes me wonder if putting state level structure around “militias” (open entry for anyone over 18, govern some aspects of sport shooting and training) would be an effective entry to reducing the number of semiautomatic weapons in circulation At least in the United States, sadly that ship has sailed as SCOTUS precedent repeatedly emphasizes the 2nd Amendment as a purely individual right. The so-called preamble discussing states and militias is now formally a dead letter.
  - acdha 4y ago
    > At least in the United States, sadly that ship has sailed as SCOTUS precedent repeatedly emphasizes the 2nd Amendment as a purely individual right. With the current court, yes, but that interpretation only dates back to 2008. It would be much less of a reversal than we just saw for a future court to find that Heller was decided in error, and unlike Alito’s pretense of research there’s far more historical precedent supporting the collective interpretation going back at least as far as what the people drafting the second amendment discussed when they did so, as well as two centuries of general agreement on that point.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > and unlike Alito’s pretense of research there’s far more historical precedent supporting the collective interpretation going back at least as far as what the people drafting the second amendment discussed when they did so, as well as two centuries of general agreement on that point. And, also, the prefatory clause of the text of the Amendment itself.
      - acdha 4y ago
        Yes: it would not take a legal genius to say “these words were included for a reason, here are period discussions confirming that and two centuries without serious question”.
      - refurb 4y ago
        Back when the Constitution was written, the militia was "all able bodies males" who could be called to service. It wasn't a formal organization like the military today. It was basically all male citizens. So that actually aligns with it being an individual right.
- Tool_of_Society 4y ago
  Unlikely as people are already producing semiautomatic firearms with consumer level 3d printer technology. There are even competitions out there already such as the Makers Match. There are some firearms part manufacturers that utilize 3d printing for part production. The company that made the first fully printed .45 1911 handgun uses printers to produce parts for sale. I grew up in the rural midwest so my firearm experience goes back to the single digits of age. It was expected I would take the firearms and hunter safety courses that the state provided. I believe that such courses should at the very least be the minimum required for anyone purchasing a gun.
  - simon1ltd 4y ago
    I think the hunters safety courses should be a requirement for everyone, even those that aren’t buying a firearm — and should probably come around the age of 14/15 unless you’re going to be hunting earlier.
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    To be fair, it's only true that people are making firearms on 3d printers because what we consider the firearm in the US is unusual. In other places the portion of the machine that contains pressure is the firearm. In the US the portion of the machine that holds the trigger mechanism is considered the firearm. This leads to the easiest part of the machine to manufacture also being the only part that is illegal to manufacture in places where such a thing is illegal. It's exactly backwards from physics. Making a 3d printed firing chamber is exceedingly difficult, especially one that won't blow your hand off. Making a trigger - even a fully automatic one - is one notch above trivial.
roganartu 4y ago
I’m sorry but this is a dangerously inaccurate summary of Australia’s gun laws and how they are perceived socially. For starters, private gun owners are not actually allowed to use their firearms in self defence. There have been some cases previously where people have and have been acquitted on grounds of self-defence, but if you use a gun on a person you are 100% going to be arrested, jailed, and charged, at which point you better hope you have a good lawyer. It’s also extremely uncommon for even farmers to have shotguns. They fall under a different, much much more restrictive category (similar to pistols) and are generally not used by farmers who instead opt for bolt action rifles for pest control. Additionally, it’s worth pointing out that the idea that a country needs a “well armed militia” is very American (or at least, not at all Australian). None of my Australian friends or family want this, and everyone I know is very happy with our gun laws and the social safety they afford us. I’m sure there are some Australians that disagree, but the widespread sentiment is overwhelmingly that Howard did the right thing in rapidly enacting sweeping gun reform after the Port Arthur massacre. Your assertion that a non-primary-producer can only own a bolt action rifle is also incorrect. Anyone with the appropriate license can own a pistol or a shotgun, the requirements around frequency of sporting event participation are just much greater for these categories of firearm as we consider them much more dangerous to society and so (reasonably, imo) dramatically limit their ownership to only those who actively and responsibly use them for sport. Finally, the scrutiny a person comes under for owning a bolt (or lever) action rifle is fairly minor. You need a safe place to store it (the state provides requirements, and the police will inspect it before granting the license, and also perform occasional spot checks), you need to be a member of a sport shooting association, and you need to participate in one shooting competition that is certified by that association per year. This is easy to do for someone who wants to own a gun in the city, as the only legitimate reason to own a gun for a non-primary-producer is sport shooting at a shooting range anyway. The most valid complaint I can think of is regarding this is that the storage requirements make it practically impossible for a renter to own a gun, as the safe must be either really heavy (making it very expensive) or permanently affixed to the building (a modification most Australian rental agreements forbid).
- halffaday 4y ago
  The Australian government also put its citizens in concentration camps with total impunity last year. That sort of outrageous mistreatment of lower and middle class people is not feasible outside of a few cities in the United States. Cheran in Mexico is also a good example of how resisting state-mandated civilian disarmament can discourage the abuse of citizens by powerful organizations.

germinalphrase 4y ago

Which makes me wonder if putting state level structure around “militias” (open entry for anyone over 18, govern some aspects of sport shooting and training) would be an effective entry to reducing the number of semiautomatic weapons in circulation (though the numbers there are so staggering that it feels somewhat pointless).

idiotsecant 4y ago
FYI this isn't super different from how it's culturally done in certain circles in the US (although it's not universal). When I was a young teen I took a hunter's education course that covered ethical hunting, firearm safety, first aid, basic wilderness survival, etc. I would support making that sort of requirement for owning firearms universal, but I would anticipate that a lot of people would view this as a registry which is not a very attractive prospect for a lot of people.
- germinalphrase 4y ago
  This is my experience as well. I grew up in a small midwestern town. I continue to shoot and do a little bit of hunting, but the temperature around firearms and gun ownership really took a turn in the 90’s. Lots of wild conversations happening down at the conservation club. Edit: I guess my initial comment was more about a cultural/legal framework for reasonably reducing the number of semiautomatic weapons in the general populace.
  - Tool_of_Society 4y ago
    yeah the 90s is when the term "assault weapon" was pushed into the narrative in an attempt to blur the lines between a semiautomatic hunting rifle and an actual assault rifle. So that's how we end up with people calling hunting rifles "assault rifles/weapons" or "military grade weaponry". It's like dude a freaking blunderbuss is military grade weaponry. The most popular hunting rounds in the USA were originally designed for military use.
    - germinalphrase 4y ago
      Right. There really isn’t a clear difference between the two, so attempting to draw that line is foolhardy. That said, the lethality advantage of semiautomatic weapons over manually operated is obvious.
      - pclmulqdq 4y ago
        There is a very clear distinction between the two. Assault rifles have automatic (or select-fire) capabilities. One trigger pull can produce many bullets. Semi-automatic rifles, which were later called "assault weapons," can only produce one bullet per trigger pull. What makes them semi-automatic is that they automatically reload after firing. Many other types of guns also do this (eg double-action revolvers) and many take minimal movement to reload (eg lever-action and bolt-action rifles). This is a very big difference. A commercial semiautomatic rifle is only slightly more lethal than a bolt-action rifle. An assault rifle is much more lethal than both.
        germinalphrase 4y ago
        I didn’t downvote, but I don’t believe your chosen definition is widely accepted. Further, many elite soldiers will say that they rarely would put their weapons in full auto in a fire fight. I’m certainly not one of them and can’t speak to it, but I’ll take their word their semi-auto rifles are plenty lethal.
        4y ago
- bluGill 4y ago
  There are a number of people who will use such a system as a registry they can abuse and once in a while they get political power.
  - esrauch 4y ago
    This seems like borderline deranged paranoia to me; what do you expect these powerful people to do given the registry of automatic gun owners? Are you expecting a WW2 French Revolution style situation where the moral resistance will be stronger because of the unregistered firearms? Most of these guns are bought on credit or debit cards, so the information about big ticket gun buyers probably unregulated available through Palantir or whoever.
    - coredog64 4y ago
      It doesn’t take any paranoia. There’s been several instances of journalists using FOIA requests to get the names and addresses of firearm owners and then publishing them. It just happened again in California post the recent USSC decision: An LA journalist requested the names and addresses of current permit holders.
      - esrauch 4y ago
        And then what bad thing happened? And if FOIA is really the problem (not the government knowing) then the registry could be made legally exempt from FOIA. The government keeps databases including all of your income (IRS) and your religion (the Census) but random journalists can't get the information.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - elmomle 4y ago
        I believe the paranoia is misplaced. I'm not aware of a single instance in the whole history of the US where a citizen was targeted by members of the public primarily on the basis of their owning a gun (or holding a permit)--are you?
- chasd00 4y ago
  Hunter’s Ed was included in my HS Agriculture class, we all received the little card that came with completion of the course too. In rural areas it’s pretty standard stuff.
wahern 4y ago
> Which makes me wonder if putting state level structure around “militias” (open entry for anyone over 18, govern some aspects of sport shooting and training) would be an effective entry to reducing the number of semiautomatic weapons in circulation At least in the United States, sadly that ship has sailed as SCOTUS precedent repeatedly emphasizes the 2nd Amendment as a purely individual right. The so-called preamble discussing states and militias is now formally a dead letter.
- acdha 4y ago
  > At least in the United States, sadly that ship has sailed as SCOTUS precedent repeatedly emphasizes the 2nd Amendment as a purely individual right. With the current court, yes, but that interpretation only dates back to 2008. It would be much less of a reversal than we just saw for a future court to find that Heller was decided in error, and unlike Alito’s pretense of research there’s far more historical precedent supporting the collective interpretation going back at least as far as what the people drafting the second amendment discussed when they did so, as well as two centuries of general agreement on that point.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > and unlike Alito’s pretense of research there’s far more historical precedent supporting the collective interpretation going back at least as far as what the people drafting the second amendment discussed when they did so, as well as two centuries of general agreement on that point. And, also, the prefatory clause of the text of the Amendment itself.
    - acdha 4y ago
      Yes: it would not take a legal genius to say “these words were included for a reason, here are period discussions confirming that and two centuries without serious question”.
    - refurb 4y ago
      Back when the Constitution was written, the militia was "all able bodies males" who could be called to service. It wasn't a formal organization like the military today. It was basically all male citizens. So that actually aligns with it being an individual right.
Tool_of_Society 4y ago
Unlikely as people are already producing semiautomatic firearms with consumer level 3d printer technology. There are even competitions out there already such as the Makers Match. There are some firearms part manufacturers that utilize 3d printing for part production. The company that made the first fully printed .45 1911 handgun uses printers to produce parts for sale. I grew up in the rural midwest so my firearm experience goes back to the single digits of age. It was expected I would take the firearms and hunter safety courses that the state provided. I believe that such courses should at the very least be the minimum required for anyone purchasing a gun.
- simon1ltd 4y ago
  I think the hunters safety courses should be a requirement for everyone, even those that aren’t buying a firearm — and should probably come around the age of 14/15 unless you’re going to be hunting earlier.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  To be fair, it's only true that people are making firearms on 3d printers because what we consider the firearm in the US is unusual. In other places the portion of the machine that contains pressure is the firearm. In the US the portion of the machine that holds the trigger mechanism is considered the firearm. This leads to the easiest part of the machine to manufacture also being the only part that is illegal to manufacture in places where such a thing is illegal. It's exactly backwards from physics. Making a 3d printed firing chamber is exceedingly difficult, especially one that won't blow your hand off. Making a trigger - even a fully automatic one - is one notch above trivial.

roganartu 4y ago

I’m sorry but this is a dangerously inaccurate summary of Australia’s gun laws and how they are perceived socially. For starters, private gun owners are not actually allowed to use their firearms in self defence. There have been some cases previously where people have and have been acquitted on grounds of self-defence, but if you use a gun on a person you are 100% going to be arrested, jailed, and charged, at which point you better hope you have a good lawyer. It’s also extremely uncommon for even farmers to have shotguns. They fall under a different, much much more restrictive category (similar to pistols) and are generally not used by farmers who instead opt for bolt action rifles for pest control. Additionally, it’s worth pointing out that the idea that a country needs a “well armed militia” is very American (or at least, not at all Australian). None of my Australian friends or family want this, and everyone I know is very happy with our gun laws and the social safety they afford us. I’m sure there are some Australians that disagree, but the widespread sentiment is overwhelmingly that Howard did the right thing in rapidly enacting sweeping gun reform after the Port Arthur massacre. Your assertion that a non-primary-producer can only own a bolt action rifle is also incorrect. Anyone with the appropriate license can own a pistol or a shotgun, the requirements around frequency of sporting event participation are just much greater for these categories of firearm as we consider them much more dangerous to society and so (reasonably, imo) dramatically limit their ownership to only those who actively and responsibly use them for sport. Finally, the scrutiny a person comes under for owning a bolt (or lever) action rifle is fairly minor. You need a safe place to store it (the state provides requirements, and the police will inspect it before granting the license, and also perform occasional spot checks), you need to be a member of a sport shooting association, and you need to participate in one shooting competition that is certified by that association per year. This is easy to do for someone who wants to own a gun in the city, as the only legitimate reason to own a gun for a non-primary-producer is sport shooting at a shooting range anyway. The most valid complaint I can think of is regarding this is that the storage requirements make it practically impossible for a renter to own a gun, as the safe must be either really heavy (making it very expensive) or permanently affixed to the building (a modification most Australian rental agreements forbid).

halffaday 4y ago
The Australian government also put its citizens in concentration camps with total impunity last year. That sort of outrageous mistreatment of lower and middle class people is not feasible outside of a few cities in the United States. Cheran in Mexico is also a good example of how resisting state-mandated civilian disarmament can discourage the abuse of citizens by powerful organizations.