What a beat-up. Australia is still the gold standard of gun safety.
the number of gun licence holders per capita has gone down as Australia’s population has soared, there is now a larger number of guns in the community per capita than there was in the immediate aftermath of the crackdown.
What a way to word it for maximum alarm. Let’s break that down:
- Number of gun license holders per capita is lower.
- There are more guns in Australia today than there were at our lowest point ever.
So far, I’m ok with all that.
That’s because the number of guns each licence holder has is going up – gun owners now average more than four firearms for each licence.
In WA, gun owners are now split between suburban and rural. In a rural setting like a farm, I’m comfortable that a gun owner likely needs more than four guns for assorted tasks. In suburbia, I am not comfortable with any guns in the home, but the law has come in with a maximum of five.
In Sydney New South Wales firearm register data shows that there are more than 70 individuals who own more than 100 firearms.
This one is difficult to defend. I don’t know what the maximum number of guns to own should be, but I see no way to justify 100+ guns. Nobody needs that many. I’m also unsure how to read this sentence: Is the register in Sydney, New South Wales? Or is it saying that the individuals are in Sydney according to the New South Wales register? I would read this statement as “In Sydney, the New South Wales firearm register says there are 70 individuals…” which means the people are all over the state, but the register is in Sydney. And it also makes the sentence super-dooper misleading.
Even accounting for all the rage-bait, the biggest difference we have is that our guns are all registered. If you find a gun in the street, Police can look up who owns it, that isn’t so easy in USA.
There is a certain collectors/antiques(?) firearms licence you can apply for in NSW, essentially you can own/horde guns but not use them in any manner.
I’d imagine that’s what those 70 individuals are referring to. I’m not sure how that licence is enforced but I’d imagine it is pretty strict, most likely for things like the Lithgow small arms museum
They specified that these are functional firearms and not collections. I’m no expert on this, but apparently collectable class of firearms are meant to be disabled from being used somehow.
Ahh right, yeah hmm… it is a bit excessive at that point
The fuck? Why does the guardian have a second crappy researched Aus gun laws article in the space of three days??? I literally just scrolled up from the previous one on my Lemmy feed.
the number of guns each licence holder has is going up – gun owners now average more than four firearms for each licence.
So on our farm we have
- A shotgun(foxes and rabbits)
- A .22(never got rid of it)
- A .22 Magnum (kangaroos and sheep)
- An air rifle(fun)
- A .303(cows and wild pigs)
3 guns is close to an irreducible minimum for a large farm or a serious hunter. I imagine club shooters similarly ‘need’ around 3-4 guns for different events. An average of more than four on each license is not a shocking figure.
With the exception of illegally acquired guns there is very little in here that is concerning. The absence of semi automatic and pump action guns combined with registration tied to valid uses remains firm.
How do the animals even hold the guns, let alone aim and fire them? Why do animals need guns at all?
There’s a reason Australia is know for dangerous animals.
I very much agree, the number of guns per licence in and of itself is not a concern. That said, I still believe that it’s a valuable statistic to track.
Legally owned/originally acquired guns are the ones that contribute to the grey-market, obviously, and acknowledging that the supply for that market is likely to grow is important to bare in mind.
I absolutely agree with the last statement as well, greater restrictions around semi-automatic and faster firing weapons has had the greatest impact on safety, regardless of the increase in guns per person.
