Australian Prime Minister has not ruled out watering down tough gun laws in order to a bill through - Polidicks

[QUOTE][B]Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has refused to rule out negotiating over Australia's gun laws to secure support from crossbench Senator David Leyonhjelm to pass the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) legislation.[/B] A temporary import ban on the Adler shotgun was introduced under Tony Abbott's government in 2015 and was set to expire in July, but the ban has been extended. Senator Leyonhjelm, who has long advocated for the import ban to be lifted, has accused [URL="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-13/adler-shotgun-importation-ban-to-be-lifted-after-leyonhjelm-deal/6694586"]the Government of breaking a deal with him[/URL] to see the laws changed last year. He has now suggested it could be a condition of his support for the reintroduction of the ABCC. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten described the negotiating process as a "disgrace". Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus also attacked the Prime Minister. "We've had extraordinary revelations today that Malcolm Turnbull is prepared, it seems to water down Australia's best in the world gun laws in order to get his anti-worker legislation through the Parliament," Mr Dreyfus said.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-18/pm-will-not-rule-out-negotiating-gun-laws/7941728[/url]

Seems the shotgun was banned because you can extend the magazine size from 5 to 14? Why is that an issue? Magazine size bans went really fucking well in America and did precisely nothing.

[QUOTE=helifreak;51219355]Seems the shotgun was banned because you can extend the magazine size from 5 to 14? Why is that an issue? Magazine size bans went really fucking well in America and did precisely nothing.[/QUOTE] Because the people that write these laws and policies generally know nothing about firearms. So they just go to the public that knows nothing about firearms and tout that they did something to tackle "gun crime." Even when it doesn't do anything to crime.

[QUOTE=helifreak;51219355]Seems the shotgun was banned because you can extend the magazine size from 5 to 14? Why is that an issue? Magazine size bans went really fucking well in America and did precisely nothing.[/QUOTE] The article misrepresents the ban. The gun isn't banned - I own one. What they banned was the importation of lever-action shotguns with magazines over 5 rounds, so they fitted them with 5 round magazines and brought them in. There's a company here in Adelaide that makes the magazine extension so you can modify them in-country back to their original magazine size (and larger! I think the largest they offer is 12 rounds). The ban is dumb and useless. Gun laws are the job of state governments not the Federal government. To say Turnbull is water down out gun laws is stupid.

[QUOTE=Kigen;51219357]Because the people that write these laws and policies generally know nothing about firearms. So they just go to the public that knows nothing about firearms and tout that they did something to tackle "gun crime." Even when it doesn't do anything to crime.[/QUOTE] It's especially obvious they know nothing in this case. The whole reason this shit is happening is because when the current laws were written, the lawmakers didn't know bolt or lever-action shotguns existed, so they only put pump-action and semi-auto ones in the highly restricted category. Now Adler came out with a common, commercially available lever-action shotgun and they all shit themselves and tried to get it banned, but were only able to limit the magazine tube's size instead. Which was completely ineffective, as download noted.

And yet this won't do a thing to stop people from illegally increasing the magazine capacity.

I hope they make gun laws stricter. This is bad news, since stats show that the bans do work even if they arent "fair".

[QUOTE=Tasm;51220346]I hope they make gun laws stricter. This is bad news, since stats show that the bans do work even if they arent "fair".[/QUOTE] Then please explain the discrepancy in murder rates between Australia with its tighter gun laws and higher murder rate and New Zealand with its lower murder rate and looser gun laws.

[QUOTE=download;51220383]Then please explain the discrepancy in murder rates between Australia with its tighter gun laws and higher murder rate and New Zealand with its lower murder rate and looser gun laws.[/QUOTE] This question is a discrepancy in itself. New Zealand may have a lower murder rate while having looser gun laws, but it doesn't mean less gun laws is better. Look at America, they have virtually no gun laws over there and there are shootings nearly every week. [editline]18th October 2016[/editline] Also don't forget, New Zealand is smaller than Australia, we can easily fit New Zealand in multiple times in our own country, heck it's slightly bigger than Victoria, our smallest inland state. Lower population means lower murders, that in it self makes a Comparison between Zealand and Australia completely illogical. You are comparing a 7.692 million Kilometer country with a population of 23.13 million, to a 268,021 Kilometer country with a population of 4.471 million.

[QUOTE=Xonax;51220680]This question is a discrepancy in itself. New Zealand may have a lower murder rate while having looser gun laws, but it doesn't mean less gun laws is better. Look at America, they have virtually no gun laws over there and there are shootings nearly every week. [editline]18th October 2016[/editline] Also don't forget, New Zealand is smaller than Australia, we can easily fit New Zealand in multiple times in our own country, heck it's slightly bigger than Victoria, our smallest inland state. Lower population means lower murders, that in it self makes a Comparison between Zealand and Australia completely illogical. You are comparing a 7.692 million Kilometer country with a population of 23.13 million, to a 268,021 Kilometer country with a population of 4.471 million.[/QUOTE] :rolleyes: It's called a murder rate. It's adjusted by population and is usually in the form of x per 100k people per year. Please don't be so incredibly ignorant. [editline]18th October 2016[/editline] And New Zealand's murder rate is still lower than Australia's.

[QUOTE=Xonax;51220680]This question is a discrepancy in itself. New Zealand may have a lower murder rate while having looser gun laws, but it doesn't mean less gun laws is better. Look at America, they have [B]virtually no gun laws[/B] over there and there are shootings nearly every week.[/QUOTE] It's not that we don't have gun laws, just the opposite. It's just that the gun laws we [I]do[/I] have are written and pushed through by ignorant, hyper-paranoid manchildren.

[QUOTE=download;51220716]:rolleyes: It's called a murder rate. It's adjusted by population and is usually in the form of x per 100k people per year. Please don't be so incredibly ignorant. [editline]18th October 2016[/editline] And New Zealand's murder rate is still lower than Australia's.[/QUOTE] It is an incredibly simplistic reading of statistics to assume that a lower murder rate in New Zealand is an indictment of Australia's gun laws seriously before you start sounding off being all smarmy and pass ag at a guy I reckon you should probably like, think a little

[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;51220741]Something in NZ is working very well because I personally know NZers that own literally dozens of guns, some even with SUPPRESSORS and BIG MAGAZINES. Yet they don't go killing people and the murder rate, especially with legally owned guns, is incredibly low in NZ. I can build a homemade lathe in a day or two. Using that homemade lathe and a homemade cutting tool I can turn a steel/aluminium pipe of near-diameter to the diameter I need. Then it's just a case of threading female threads for attaching to the existing magazine, then threading male threads on the end for the cap (or to make it easier, just make the cap part of the tube). A spring is easy as hell to make with some proper steel wire, a wood rod to use to make the spring, then heat treat it. Laws like these are incredibly easy to bypass.[/QUOTE] gun crime in New Zealand is higher than Australia Murder rate is lower in NZ true, but that doesn't mean you can infer our gun laws don't work in preventing gun violence and curbing our murder rate, what it means is that Australia has broader cultural problems with violence which need to be addressed, and this is supported by statistics on domestic violence, and alcohol-fueled violence in Australia, for example New Zealand abandoned gun laws in favour of targeting high-risk areas, providing support, etc. I think Australia would benefit from New Zealand's solution but I don't think Australia would benefit from NZ's laxness on gun laws.

[QUOTE=Xonax;51220680]This question is a discrepancy in itself. New Zealand may have a lower murder rate while having looser gun laws, but it doesn't mean less gun laws is better. Look at America, they have virtually no gun laws over there and there are shootings nearly every week. [editline]18th October 2016[/editline] Also don't forget, New Zealand is smaller than Australia, we can easily fit New Zealand in multiple times in our own country, heck it's slightly bigger than Victoria, our smallest inland state. Lower population means lower murders, that in it self makes a Comparison between Zealand and Australia completely illogical. You are comparing a 7.692 million Kilometer country with a population of 23.13 million, to a 268,021 Kilometer country with a population of 4.471 million.[/QUOTE] Hey, if we didn't have Chicago, Detroit, and a couple other shitholes, we wouldn't really have a problem. Most of the rest of the country does pretty good.

[QUOTE=killerteacup;51220733]It is an incredibly simplistic reading of statistics to assume that a lower murder rate in New Zealand is an indictment of Australia's gun laws seriously before you start sounding off being all smarmy and pass ag at a guy I reckon you should probably like, think a little[/QUOTE] If that is simplistic then it's also simplistic to assume that America's gun laws are a reflection of their murder rate. But then again I think you'll find many Australian consider that statement to be ridiculous. [editline]18th October 2016[/editline] And I did far more thinking than he did, automatically assuming I was taking about the raw number of murders in both countries.

[QUOTE=download;51220808]If that is simplistic then it's also simplistic to assume that America's gun laws are a reflection of their murder rate. But then again I think you'll find many Australian consider that statement to be ridiculous. [editline]18th October 2016[/editline] And I did far more thinking than he did, automatically assuming I was taking about the raw number of murders in both countries.[/QUOTE] I'll be honest, usually I do try to research before posting but I've had a rough day and I didn't put in enough effort. I'll refrain from posting here until I do more research.

[QUOTE=download;51220808]If that is simplistic then it's also simplistic to assume that America's gun laws are a reflection of their murder rate. But then again I think you'll find many Australian consider that statement to be ridiculous. [editline]18th October 2016[/editline] And I did far more thinking than he did, automatically assuming I was taking about the raw number of murders in both countries.[/QUOTE] That's no excuse to be insulting in a way you wouldn't be in real life Nevertheless, yes it is simplistic to assume that america's gun laws are solely a reflection of their murder rate, I never argued that it wasn't?

[QUOTE=killerteacup;51220823]That's no excuse to be insulting in a way you wouldn't be in real life Nevertheless, yes it is simplistic to assume that america's gun laws are solely a reflection of their murder rate, I never argued that it wasn't?[/QUOTE] I would consider Xonax's assumption that I was referring to raw murder numbers like an idiot to be an insult. Regardless, I may have jumped the gun there with that assumption.

if larger mags dont matter then you dont need larger mags

[QUOTE=abcpea;51220996]if larger mags dont matter then you dont need larger mags[/QUOTE] In most Western societies, it is the responsibility of the government to justify banning a product from sale for tangible reasons, not 'you don't strictly need this' which can be applied to probably half the things in your house.

[QUOTE=catbarf;51221067]In most Western societies, it is the responsibility of the government to justify banning a product from sale for tangible reasons, not 'you don't strictly need this' which can be applied to probably half the things in your house.[/QUOTE] Half the things in your house weren't meant to kill people

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51221203]Half the things in your house weren't meant to kill people[/QUOTE] If you can make a compelling case for why an extended magazine tube is a credible threat to the public then maybe you can justify a ban. If you can't, then 'but you don't need it!' isn't a legitimate justification, and 'but it's a [i]gun[/i]!' is just special pleading. Yes, it's a gun. If it's actually meant to kill people (considering the gun in question is a common sporting/hunting configuration, I suspect it is not) and a piece of pipe with a spring in it makes it so much more effective in that role that it's worth banning, then you should have no problem actually constructing a sound justification rather than using emotional grabs.

[QUOTE=catbarf;51221387]If you can make a compelling case for why an extended magazine tube is a credible threat to the public then maybe you can justify a ban. If you can't, then 'but you don't need it!' isn't a legitimate justification, and 'but it's a [i]gun[/i]!' is just special pleading. Yes, it's a gun. If it's actually meant to kill people (considering the gun in question is a common sporting/hunting configuration, I suspect it is not) and a piece of pipe with a spring in it makes it so much more effective in that role that it's worth banning, then you should have no problem actually constructing a sound justification rather than using emotional grabs.[/QUOTE] But think of the children. jk but for real come up with a better argument than heartstrings.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;51221203]Half the things in your house weren't meant to kill people[/QUOTE] It staggers me that with just how many shit-flinging gun law threads we have in this damn forum, we still get posts like these as if none of the previous threads ever happened.

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51222803]It staggers me that with just how many shit-flinging gun law threads we have in this damn forum, we still get posts like these as if none of the previous threads ever happened.[/QUOTE] Every time I see someone post that as a point, Mermaid Man from spongebob pops up in my head shouting "EVIL!" because that's what it reminds me of.

[QUOTE=catbarf;51221387]If you can make a compelling case for why an extended magazine tube is a credible threat to the public then maybe you can justify a ban. If you can't, then 'but you don't need it!' isn't a legitimate justification, and 'but it's a [i]gun[/i]!' is just special pleading. Yes, it's a gun. If it's actually meant to kill people (considering the gun in question is a common sporting/hunting configuration, I suspect it is not) and a piece of pipe with a spring in it makes it so much more effective in that role that it's worth banning, then you should have no problem actually constructing a sound justification rather than using emotional grabs.[/QUOTE] Its harder for police to shoot and kill someone who's using a 30round magazine because he doesn't need to stop and reload as often. It also means they can carry more rounds of ammunition because it's harder to carry multiple magazines.

[QUOTE=download;51220383]Then please explain the discrepancy in murder rates between Australia with its tighter gun laws and higher murder rate and New Zealand with its lower murder rate and looser gun laws.[/QUOTE] Haha holy shit this is the dumbest argument Ive heard in ages. Can you clarify, do you mean gun related murders? Because if they have declined the legislation has quite obviously done its intended job.

[QUOTE=Xonax;51220680]This question is a discrepancy in itself. New Zealand may have a lower murder rate while having looser gun laws, but it doesn't mean less gun laws is better. Look at America, they have virtually no gun laws over there and there are shootings nearly every week.[/QUOTE] Correlation =/= Causation.[i] Correlation =/= Causation.[b] Correlation =/= Causation.[/i][/b]

[QUOTE=Tasm;51220346]I hope they make gun laws stricter. This is bad news, since stats show that the bans do work even if they arent "fair".[/QUOTE] Not really true. The drop of murders in Australia dropped at the same rate before and after the ban. It has had no appreciable effect, except to make the ignorant feel safer.

[QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;51222909]Its harder for police to shoot and kill someone who's using a 30round magazine because he doesn't need to stop and reload as often. [/QUOTE] Can you cite examples of this happening? There are very few cases of police taking down a shotgun-wielding assailant when he reloads, partly because it's easy to keep a shotgun topped up, and partly because if you're staying behind cover to not get shot it's hard to tell if your attacker has run out of ammo. Modern firearms are so easy to reload that the couple seconds of delay makes no practical difference in a shootout. I can cite you actual police officers expressing this if you don't want to take it from me. The idea of a police officer hearing a pause in shooting and taking down the shooter while he reloads is more Hollywood than reality. [QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;51222909]It also means they can carry more rounds of ammunition because it's harder to carry multiple magazines.[/QUOTE] This is a tubular magazine. You don't carry 'multiple' magazines, there's just the one on the gun. [QUOTE=Tasm;51223011]Can you clarify, do you mean gun related murders? Because if they have declined the legislation has quite obviously done its intended job.[/QUOTE] So let me get this straight- Australia's homicide rate peaked several years [I]after[/I] the ban, and continues to be higher than New Zealand's, but you call that a win because non-firearm deaths are preferable for some reason? There are a lot of interrelated factors here, but the comparison shows that gun laws do not necessarily make a country safer. Whether the homicide rate comes from firearms or non-firearms has no bearing on that observation.