You can survive with one outfit, without ever going camping (harms the environment after all), without soft drink or fast food, without recreational drugs, without a video games or books.

That's poor framing. The question is does the activity someone wants to engage in (and the tools involved) represent an unfair burden or risk to others in society. Now we can have that conversation about firearms in general but this limit is arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. It's entirely vibes based.

[–] MisterFrog@aussie.zone -2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The number of guns you need for recreation is zero. Get a different hobby ffs.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Why does it bother you that I enjoy putting holes in paper while squinting?

I'm not going to hurt anyone, I take safety seriously and store my guns and ammo securely above and beyond legal compliance. I have undergone training, police checks, periodic audits. Who am I hurting?

[–] MisterFrog@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Go ask the vast majority of Australians this same question and you'll get roughly the same answer: because the number of guns in the community makes it more likely to be stolen and more likely to fall into the hands of people who will misuse those guns.

It's the fact people can get access to guns, which is literally what happened at Bondi. The cunts had recreational licenses. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that it would not have been harder for them if recreational licenses didn't exist? They legally owned those guns.

This isn't America, the debate you're having is no where near you side in this country. People don't generally think you have a right to have a gun for fun. I would be willing to bet many people will judge you here for even being a hobbyist gun owner. As they should.

The actual hobby doesn't bother me. I don't doubt you won't hurt anyone. But you're lying to yourself and everyone if you're going to try and deny the risk to the community recreational licenses present.

Its the number of guns out there and the ease of access that presents the risk.

In conclusion, get a new hobby. I'm in no way apologising for that position and it's very self-centred if you can't accept that allowing hobbyist gun ownership is a risk to the community, just because it's fun for you.

It would suck for you if recreational licenses hopefully get removed one day, I get that, but seriously. You need to suck it up.

I hope we don't need to have another massacre before we finally get rid of hobby licenses, and I think it's ridiculous that wasn't included in these law changes, considering that's how the weapons were acquired in the first place.

Guns are necessary, but for fun? Nope.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Yeah nah. I get where youre coming from on wanting the community to be safe, thats fair enough and no one wants to see another tragedy like bondi or port arthur. You're argument isn't very good though.

First off saying the vast majority of aussies agree doesnt really prove something is right or moral does it. like majority views have been dead wrong on loads of things throughout history so thats not a great foundation for truth.

Then theres this idea that more guns automatically means more murder and the global picture actually shows thats pretty shaky. Look at places like switzerland or new zealand with decent gun ownership but way lower murder rates than plenty of countries with tight restrictions.

Own australian experience is worth a look. After the 96 reforms we saw gun crime and shootings drop and stay low which kinda shows our current laws work pretty effectively for what theyre designed to do. So the system as it is has been a success story overall. Almost all gun crime in aus is DV and that's more a reflection of our femicide problem since plenty of blokes are murdering women without them.

Another thing is you mentioned needing to avoid another massacre before getting rid of hobby licenses but then if you look at the uk which has way stricter gun laws they've had a bunch of terrible terror attacks using knives and vehicles and homemade stuff or acid. Basically determined bad guys like these daesh sympathising cunts will find a way regardless which means maybe the focus should be on who gets guns not just how many exist. We live in a world where can 3d print a semi auto pistol, I don't like it but we do.

Also gotta remember not all guns are the same right, a bolt action 22lr rifle used for target shooting or farming pests presents a totally different risk profile compared to a shotgun or a handgun, or even a bolt actiom in 303. The law already mostly recognises that with different license categories and storage rules. I think we're a bit lax with 223 and 308 rounds in particular, preferring the handgun licensing model myself. I'd also like to see restrictions on ammo stockpiling and having to keep a log of rounds discharged vs purchased but that's not the convo anyone is having. treating all guns and rounds with a broad brush is just silly.

in the end i reckon its fair enough to have the conversation about community safety and thats what our national agreement was all about. but the arguments gotta be built on solid evidence and consistent logic not just feelings or what everyone down the pub reckons.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I mean it is the gun lobby who called it "the fight of our lives"...

Also, farms can own ten guns according to the limit.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 6 days ago

Is English a second language for you?

They did not say "this is a fight for our lives" they said "this is the fight of our lives", for vs of do you see?

It reads as "This political fight is likely to be the most significant fight — in the context of gun regulation — that we will participate in during our time alive".

It's meladramatic, but that's part of politics and rhetoric. You have to rile people up.

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 0 points 6 days ago (3 children)

An 12gauge over and under for bird hunting

A 22 for small game

A 308 for larger game

A 338 for long distance targets and buffalo's

A 4570 as a backup if you miss with the 338 and they're not happy about it

A 410 shotgun for snakes

That's what I personally own. Different tools for different jobs.

This 4 gun limit is a joke

I also own a 1941 303 all matching serial numbers as a collectors item.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 6 days ago (1 children)

People who don't shoot have literally no idea. It's as ignorant as someone asking why a family might want more than one car.

I think stockpiling guns in the same calibre is a bit iffy, particularly once you're past the point where you might want to use irons. Imho the nsw regs are a little cooked, you usually face more scrutiny for the first gun in a category than any other when it seems that maybe the reverse should be true after a couple.

I also think stockpiling ammo is a concern, since ammo is actually the hard bit to make and the dangerous part.

At least in nsw though we had laws and regs that just needed adjustment. You had to give reasons for each gun. Strengthen checks there, have a look at limiting ammo stockpiles/requiring reasons if you buy a whole lot.

Being spoken down to by people who have only ever seen guns in a war museum is a bit painful.

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, owning 6 of one gun and 1000 rounds is so different to 6 different tools and am hand full of rounds for each.

Hell i can't even afford to have rounds for the 338 at 16 dollars a round or so it's expensive.

303 rounds are like 10 a round now it's crazy to have them sitting around for 5 years without using them

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 days ago

This is why I plink with my great depression era Winchester budget target rifle.

100 years of use and still shooting clovers.

[–] taygaloocat@leminal.space 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Well he certainly answered that question. I was initially like "yeah who tf needs more than 4 guns" but yeah I guess this does make sense.

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 1 points 6 days ago

Yeah i can't make an argument for 10 or more beyond collecting for fun and sports shooting. But hunting you need different tools

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip -3 points 6 days ago

Cool, I have zero guns, and can still survive just fine.

My point is that being limited to four guns is not an existential issue.

[–] InevitableWaffles@midwest.social 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Would you deny someone that ability to have more than 4 pairs of shoes? They need to be able to accessories. /s

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

4 ‽

How about 1 revolver and 1 hunting rifle/shotgun?

Enough for anyone. Anywhere.

[–] SaneMartigan@aussie.zone 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

They're supposed to be tools, dangerous tools. That's a bit like saying you're allowed a 12mm spanner, one screwdriver and one pair of pliers for your tool kit. Deer hunting VS rabbit vd rodent, you don't want to be firing dollar coins at rats when a high powered air rifle will do the trick. That same air rifle is useless for the deer and rabbits.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

you could try not wasting ammo on rats full stop

[–] SaneMartigan@aussie.zone 0 points 6 days ago

Cant bait rodents eating chicken feed as the chooks'll eat the bait too.

High powered air rifles have very cheap ammo.