this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
20 points (91.7% liked)

Australia

4688 readers
110 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
lodion@aussie.zone
bestusername@aussie.zone
eatham@aussie.zone
Nath@aussie.zone
20
Anthony Albanese must show the same determination as John Howard following the Port Arthur massacre (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) by kwero@sh.itjust.works to c/australia@aussie.zone
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The gun number argument feels like an ineffective bandaid though

Think of it less as a bandaid, and more as one small tool in a long list of tools used to prevent things like this.

And whoops. I actually started my last comment to make one main point, but added in a bunch of other points along with it. And then forgot to get to the main reason I started replying. So here it is:

I would feel bad if I inherited my great great grandfather’s still functional shotgun and had to destroy a 120 year old antique

Present laws treat antiques very differently from more modern guns with more utilitarian purpose. Future laws should continue to do this, IMO.

Along with moving away from a class-based system into a case-by-case system, perhaps rather than a specific number of guns, the law should include, as one of the factors in the case-by-case assessment, why the person needs an additional gun. If it's filling a niche that the person very clearly cannot fill with their current guns (and which the person has a demonstrated need to fill), then allow it. Multiple of the same or similar type of weapon is less likely to be a valid reason than owning a rifle for pigs, an antique collectible, and a clay pigeon shotgun.

[–] Dimand@aussie.zone 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I like the idea of a case by case assessment. I feel like they should have already been doing this in the background and questioning people with sus armouries.

But I strongly disagree with the removal of the class system. I know it will get abused and some yahoo will successfully argue they need a semi auto rifle for some stupid reason and get it without having to go through the current class C license requirements.

Our class system is very effective and shouldn't be watered down because of this.

Edit: basically, in the list of tools, keep the classes, they are very good but might need some updating to put more in class C.