The New firearms legislation and protest laws simply need to be thrown out, They serve no purpose with making the community safer, Its simply punishing the community for the continual failures of the NSW government and NSW police.
Cyraga on
As gun hobbyists are wont to say. Every reasonable person knows 10 is still more than too muchÂ
Veledris on
So a farmer can only two guns at a time at maximum. Do they need 8 backups? Are they that unreliable or do they really need 9 different ways to put a bullet in a pig?
IdkAmISerious on
Surprisingly, some NSW farmers aren’t the sharpest bunch
DailyDoseOfCynicism on
>”You’ll use a .22 [calibre weapon], a rimfire or a shotgun, to shoot a rabbit,” he said.
>”You’ll use a .222 or .223 to shoot a fox — that’s about the most common thing you’ll find on most farms.
>”If you’re euthanasing livestock you’d need a .22, if it was cow it might be a .223.
>”If you’re going to shoot pigs or a deer you need something a bit bigger…”
So you need a .22, a .223 and “something a bit bigger”. That’s 3 guns.
INeedToShutUP1 on
These gun laws are a joke.
If the government literally just did their job and enforced current laws this would’ve never happened. How do we expect them to enforce more laws when they were too incompetent to enforce existing laws lmao.
Also the actual laws they’re introducing make no fucking sense. I’ll give someone $100 if they can tell me what the fuck a “belt fed shotgun” is, because they literally don’t exist. Also love how they banning pump action shotguns when they already banned and were not even used (are they double banned now?) Also love how the government misinformed everyone claiming that licenses were held in perpetuity (literally have to renew every couple years).
Also gun limits don’t do anything and just make people feel safer, not actually safer, because you can literally only use 1-2 long guns at a time, because you have 2 hands lmao.
Also did nobody in government realise that people that have “too many guns” are just going to get their family or friends to get their own licenses to they can still keep their guns. So the government is literally creating more gun owners lmao.
And again, amazing how the government carries on and fear mongers about wanting “less guns in the community” and then immediately decides to increase guns in the community by arming private security groups and arming police with more guns lmao.
Just insane how the government is literally punishing everyone from protesters, gun owners, farmers and just normal people instead of actually combatting terrorism and the other broad problems that need addressing (like immigration, extremism, social cohesion, etc). And at the same time deciding to restrict democratic freedoms as well lmao.
Its a fucking joke.
PS: Also want to point out that the AFP disbanded/greatly reduced their taskforce to combat terrorism, but increased their taskforce to combat “social cohesion???”. Just interesting thing to point out.
LordWalderFrey1 on
They will have to deal with it.
Gun control is enormously popular in Australia, that it’ll be political poison to oppose strengthening gun laws in response to a shooting. The median attitude is that less people having less guns is better. Even the Liberals shut up quickly about Albanese using guns a scapegoat.
Is this right or fair? Maybe, maybe not, but it’s real.
lazy-bruce on
I feel like that headline is probably not framing the issue very well
10 guns sounds a lot to most people who have 0.
copacetic51 on
10 guns. The planned restrictions will be useless in reducing crime and terrorism. Window-dressing.
knobbledknees on
Every time this comes up, the sub gets bombarded by people who don’t usually comment, who are defending owning 100s of guns (and I can already visualise them replying saying, “um actually it’s only 20 guns…”).
I assume that we are being brigaded by Americans who hate it when any gun laws get up anywhere in the world, since they are worried that it might set a precedent for them.
People want it, it’s a democracy, deal with it.
davidshen84 on
Why are there no professional hunters? If hunting is so important for farming, someone will run a business for it, right?
OruenCysp on
Given that the attackers only had 3 guns, and predominantly used 2, until 1 was taken away… I don’t see how these laws will convince people that it would have stopped the Bondi massacre, or could stop a similar one.
It seems that the Government should address the “massive failings” with the Regulation of the existing compliance and licensing laws, as reported recently:
So, all this talk about the number of guns is a pointless distraction if the ongoing regulation is a mess.
It also sets up predictable swipes, as seen in some comments here already, at farmers and recreational shooters that have a function/hobby for guns that most people don’t understand and are quick to ridicule.
People really need to be clear when thinking about… “How will this law, or increased/altered regulation tangibly impact the likelihood of something like the Bondi massacre happening again, or in the first place?”
If a cogent argument can’t be made that articulates, **at a granular practical level**, how a proposed law change would intervene at a particular step in the chain of events that led to those two morons gunning down innocent civilians, and would likely stop it from happening… then please return to the drawing board, and try again.
Altranite- on
Most garbage policy to date. How is restricting firearm ownership *number* going to prevent t*rrorist attacks? 2 guys plan something and each being 4 rifles = 8 total. At bondi they brought 3 total. Increasing the number would prevent this?🤔
staghornworrior on
Why don’t we restrict the amount of terrorists we allow in
bundy554 on
Sounds like they are wanting to plan a siege against the NSW government 😂
15 Comments
The New firearms legislation and protest laws simply need to be thrown out, They serve no purpose with making the community safer, Its simply punishing the community for the continual failures of the NSW government and NSW police.
As gun hobbyists are wont to say. Every reasonable person knows 10 is still more than too muchÂ
So a farmer can only two guns at a time at maximum. Do they need 8 backups? Are they that unreliable or do they really need 9 different ways to put a bullet in a pig?
Surprisingly, some NSW farmers aren’t the sharpest bunch
>”You’ll use a .22 [calibre weapon], a rimfire or a shotgun, to shoot a rabbit,” he said.
>”You’ll use a .222 or .223 to shoot a fox — that’s about the most common thing you’ll find on most farms.
>”If you’re euthanasing livestock you’d need a .22, if it was cow it might be a .223.
>”If you’re going to shoot pigs or a deer you need something a bit bigger…”
So you need a .22, a .223 and “something a bit bigger”. That’s 3 guns.
These gun laws are a joke.
If the government literally just did their job and enforced current laws this would’ve never happened. How do we expect them to enforce more laws when they were too incompetent to enforce existing laws lmao.
Also the actual laws they’re introducing make no fucking sense. I’ll give someone $100 if they can tell me what the fuck a “belt fed shotgun” is, because they literally don’t exist. Also love how they banning pump action shotguns when they already banned and were not even used (are they double banned now?) Also love how the government misinformed everyone claiming that licenses were held in perpetuity (literally have to renew every couple years).
Also gun limits don’t do anything and just make people feel safer, not actually safer, because you can literally only use 1-2 long guns at a time, because you have 2 hands lmao.
Also did nobody in government realise that people that have “too many guns” are just going to get their family or friends to get their own licenses to they can still keep their guns. So the government is literally creating more gun owners lmao.
And again, amazing how the government carries on and fear mongers about wanting “less guns in the community” and then immediately decides to increase guns in the community by arming private security groups and arming police with more guns lmao.
Just insane how the government is literally punishing everyone from protesters, gun owners, farmers and just normal people instead of actually combatting terrorism and the other broad problems that need addressing (like immigration, extremism, social cohesion, etc). And at the same time deciding to restrict democratic freedoms as well lmao.
Its a fucking joke.
PS: Also want to point out that the AFP disbanded/greatly reduced their taskforce to combat terrorism, but increased their taskforce to combat “social cohesion???”. Just interesting thing to point out.
They will have to deal with it.
Gun control is enormously popular in Australia, that it’ll be political poison to oppose strengthening gun laws in response to a shooting. The median attitude is that less people having less guns is better. Even the Liberals shut up quickly about Albanese using guns a scapegoat.
Is this right or fair? Maybe, maybe not, but it’s real.
I feel like that headline is probably not framing the issue very well
10 guns sounds a lot to most people who have 0.
10 guns. The planned restrictions will be useless in reducing crime and terrorism. Window-dressing.
Every time this comes up, the sub gets bombarded by people who don’t usually comment, who are defending owning 100s of guns (and I can already visualise them replying saying, “um actually it’s only 20 guns…”).
I assume that we are being brigaded by Americans who hate it when any gun laws get up anywhere in the world, since they are worried that it might set a precedent for them.
People want it, it’s a democracy, deal with it.
Why are there no professional hunters? If hunting is so important for farming, someone will run a business for it, right?
Given that the attackers only had 3 guns, and predominantly used 2, until 1 was taken away… I don’t see how these laws will convince people that it would have stopped the Bondi massacre, or could stop a similar one.
It seems that the Government should address the “massive failings” with the Regulation of the existing compliance and licensing laws, as reported recently:
[https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/nsw-police-firearms-officer-claims-massive-failings-made-bondi-massacre-inevitable/news-story/031c7a5c621c7d38ed21ad945f80105e](https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/nsw-police-firearms-officer-claims-massive-failings-made-bondi-massacre-inevitable/news-story/031c7a5c621c7d38ed21ad945f80105e)
So, all this talk about the number of guns is a pointless distraction if the ongoing regulation is a mess.
It also sets up predictable swipes, as seen in some comments here already, at farmers and recreational shooters that have a function/hobby for guns that most people don’t understand and are quick to ridicule.
People really need to be clear when thinking about… “How will this law, or increased/altered regulation tangibly impact the likelihood of something like the Bondi massacre happening again, or in the first place?”
If a cogent argument can’t be made that articulates, **at a granular practical level**, how a proposed law change would intervene at a particular step in the chain of events that led to those two morons gunning down innocent civilians, and would likely stop it from happening… then please return to the drawing board, and try again.
Most garbage policy to date. How is restricting firearm ownership *number* going to prevent t*rrorist attacks? 2 guys plan something and each being 4 rifles = 8 total. At bondi they brought 3 total. Increasing the number would prevent this?🤔
Why don’t we restrict the amount of terrorists we allow in
Sounds like they are wanting to plan a siege against the NSW government 😂