• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Australia's gun control... need some help

radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
A favorite thing to point to by gun control advocates is Australia's gun control. I have read that as part of it there was a "buy back" program, and it was hugely popular/effective, but it wasn't confiscation.

I have also heard that the cool-sounding buy back program was actually MANDATORY. If so, then not using the word confiscation doesn't mean it's not confiscation.

Is this true? And if so, can someone help me find some credible sources that I can use?

Thanks.
 
The gun buyback was voluntary in that they were not forcing people to bring in these guns.

But Australia has outlawed these guns and people who get caught with them face prison time.
 
radcen said:
A favorite thing to point to by gun control advocates is Australia's gun control. I have read that as part of it there was a "buy back" program, and it was hugely popular/effective, but it wasn't confiscation.

I have also heard that the cool-sounding buy back program was actually MANDATORY. If so, then not using the word confiscation doesn't mean it's not confiscation.

Is this true? And if so, can someone help me find some credible sources that I can use?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Australian government banned most guns, then offered an amnesty to those who would sell their now-illegal guns to the government. Those who still had legal guns had to register with their state or territory, and were only permitted to keep the gun upon showing "genuine reason" to have one.
 
spud_meister said:
Australian government banned most guns, then offered an amnesty to those who would sell their now-illegal guns to the government. Those who still had legal guns had to register with their state or territory, and were only permitted to keep the gun upon showing "genuine reason" to have one.
Click to expand...

I sint believe that they banned most guns; only semiautomatic rifles and shotguns, along with pump action shotguns were heavily restricted, requiring most owners to sell them to the government. Later, after Monash University, they enact further restrictions on handguns.
 
spud_meister said:
Australian government banned most guns, then offered an amnesty to those who would sell their now-illegal guns to the government. Those who still had legal guns had to register with their state or territory, and were only permitted to keep the gun upon showing "genuine reason" to have one.
Click to expand...

And since then Australia has had unprecedented high rates of murder, assault, robbery, mass-shootings, genocide, communism, rape, bestiality, pedophilia, drought, earthquakes, tornadoes, alien abductions, government funded beheadings, and outright anarchy the likes of which the planet Earth has not seen since, well, ever.

Right?
 
radcen said:
A favorite thing to point to by gun control advocates is Australia's gun control. I have read that as part of it there was a "buy back" program, and it was hugely popular/effective, but it wasn't confiscation.

I have also heard that the cool-sounding buy back program was actually MANDATORY. If so, then not using the word confiscation doesn't mean it's not confiscation.

Is this true? And if so, can someone help me find some credible sources that I can use?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Top Google hit for me:

Gun Control in Australia, Updated Factcheck.org
Under the 1996 law, Australia banned certain semi-automatic, self-loading rifles and shotguns, and imposed stricter licensing and registration requirements. It also instituted a mandatory buyback program for firearms banned by the 1996 law.
Click to expand...

Looks like what everyone posted here was correct.
 
Dragonfly said:
And since then Australia has had unprecedented high rates of murder, assault, robbery, mass-shootings, genocide, communism, rape, bestiality, pedophilia, drought, earthquakes, tornadoes, alien abductions, government funded beheadings, and outright anarchy the likes of which the planet Earth has not seen since, well, ever.

Right?
Click to expand...

No, but homicides were higher than in 1996 for 4 of the next 6 years, sexual assaults went up about 35% over the next ten years and armed robberies jumped 80% in just 5 years. Those numbers have since declined, but the rare of overall decline in homicide rate matches the rate of decline in the US homicide rate over that same time period.

Victims of violent crime (n per year)
 
apdst said:
The buyback was mandatory. Or rather, selling your guns to the government was mandatory.
Click to expand...

And that's where I think people who point to it as a shining example are off. Doesn't matter what spiffy name you put on it, or if you offer a token monetary compensation, mandatory equals confiscation.
 
radcen said:
And that's where I think people who point to it as a shining example are off. Doesn't matter what spiffy name you put on it, or if you offer a token monetary compensation, mandatory equals confiscation.
Click to expand...

The people who claim it was voluntary are lying. They know damn well it was mandatory.
 
radcen said:
A favorite thing to point to by gun control advocates is Australia's gun control. I have read that as part of it there was a "buy back" program, and it was hugely popular/effective, but it wasn't confiscation.

I have also heard that the cool-sounding buy back program was actually MANDATORY. If so, then not using the word confiscation doesn't mean it's not confiscation.

Is this true? And if so, can someone help me find some credible sources that I can use?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

The guns they bought back were made illegal by laws in 1996 and in 2003.

It wasn't mandatory to sell your guns back but the laws did make them contraband.

So technically it wasn't a confiscation in the strictest sense.
 
CLAX1911 said:
The guns they bought back were made illegal by laws in 1996 and in 2003.

It wasn't mandatory to sell your guns back but the laws did make them contraband.

So technically it wasn't a confiscation in the strictest sense.
Click to expand...
To-may-to, to-mah-to. It can be phrased any number of ways, but the end result is still the same, and the end result is what matters.
 
radcen said:
To-may-to, to-mah-to. It can be phrased any number of ways, but the end result is still the same, and the end result is what matters.
Click to expand...

Yes the result is the same. When talking to people that are pro gun control they will say that there wasn't a "confiscation" technically they are correct... to some degree. But the end result is taking guns from people by force.

Australia has a law in their constitution that states tat government can't cease property without compensation. That is why it was a buy back and not just a take away.

People that talk about Australia's gun control as though it's all voluntary don't have the first clue about it

It was essentially sorrender your guns or we will take them by force and lock you up. It was not voluntary.
 
Rucker61 said:
No, but homicides were higher than in 1996 for 4 of the next 6 years, sexual assaults went up about 35% over the next ten years and armed robberies jumped 80% in just 5 years. Those numbers have since declined, but the rare of overall decline in homicide rate matches the rate of decline in the US homicide rate over that same time period.

Victims of violent crime (n per year)
Click to expand...

So sexual assault and armed robberies went up 35% in ten years and 80% in just 5 years. I wonder why? Wonder if it was because the criminals that kept their guns or even the ones that didn't have guns were way more confident that they wouldn't get shot while doing their crimes and that people are now not unable to defend themselves using a gun. Sounds totally worth it!:roll:

I know thats australia and not america so that certainly doesn't mean that would happen here in the same way but my guess is it would be worse.
 
LaylaWindu said:
So sexual assault and armed robberies went up 35% in ten years and 80% in just 5 years. I wonder why? Wonder if it was because the criminals that kept their guns or even the ones that didn't have guns were way more confident that they wouldn't get shot while doing their crimes and that people are now not unable to defend themselves using a gun. Sounds totally worth it!:roll:

I know thats australia and not america so that certainly doesn't mean that would happen here in the same way but my guess is it would be worse.
Click to expand...

And yet the numbers have since declined. How about mass shootings?
 
vegas giants said:
And yet the numbers have since declined. How about mass shootings?
Click to expand...

Our homicide rate numbers declined at the same rate as Australia's, and our sexual assaults and armed robberies declined without the bump that Australia suffered. With regards to mass shootings and mass mursr, using the US definition of 4 or more shot or three killed, they continue to have them, and moreover, the firearms capable of committing them are still freely accessible. Heck, the Cumbria shooter used a 5 shot bolt action 22 rifle and a double barrel 12 bore, two of the simplest and least restricted types of firearms, to kill 12 and wound 11 people in the UK.
 
Rucker61 said:
Our homicide rate numbers declined at the same rate as Australia's, and our sexual assaults and armed robberies declined without the bump that Australia suffered. With regards to mass shootings and mass mursr, using the US definition of 4 or more shot or three killed, they continue to have them, and moreover, the firearms capable of committing them are still freely accessible. Heck, the Cumbria shooter used a 5 shot bolt action 22 rifle and a double barrel 12 bore, two of the simplest and least restricted types of firearms, to kill 12 and wound 11 people in the UK.
Click to expand...

Australia seems quite happy with their results or they would have changed back. I think they are right
 
radcen said:
And that's where I think people who point to it as a shining example are off. Doesn't matter what spiffy name you put on it, or if you offer a token monetary compensation, mandatory equals confiscation.
Click to expand...

It was mandatory for certain weapons only.

They have a second amendment. If it works for 'em - great.
 
vegas giants said:
Do you hate all their laws?
Click to expand...

I am merely asking if you support Australian gun laws. simple question. I don't know many of their laws. All that is at issue is the Australian laws concerning private citizens owning firearms
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom