Australian Gun amnesty: Rocket launcher, automatic rifles among 57,000 firearms handed in - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=BF;53168481][t]http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/9496120-3x2-940x627.jpg[/t] [/QUOTE] Which madlad stole from the Singapore army (That's an Armbrust and Queensland is near Shoalwater bay where the SAF trains)

The "rocket launcher" is just a spent tube. Those things aren't reloadable, but your average person might assume they are and think it's a big deal. [t]http://www.military-today.com/firearms/armbrust.jpg[/t] It doesn't have the cage around the front that the tip of the warhead sits inside, so it's definitely an empty tube. It's basically just a length of drainpipe at this point.

[QUOTE=LuaChobo;53169887]one of the big parts of aus gun laws is that you could still probably rob a gas station with it and the average person would be scared shitless[/QUOTE] I feel like if someone tried to rob me with a rocket launcher I would be more confused than frightened

I dont know if I would feel threatened by a launcher unless the guy in question is 100+ meters away from me

[QUOTE=MuTAnT;53168642]They're not going to destroy valuable historic items like that.[/QUOTE] Yes they are, it happens more often than I'd like, everything from antiques to war trophies get turned in and melted down and nobody involved knows or cares about the significance of it until someone spots some now-destroyed artifact in a published photo of the collections. If Australia does it differently then I'm glad, but here you always hear stories about how some careless girl turned in grandpa's war trophies for a gift card.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;53170096]Yes they are, it happens more often than I'd like, everything from antiques to war trophies get turned in and melted down and nobody involved knows or cares about the significance of it until someone spots some now-destroyed artifact in a published photo of the collections. If Australia does it differently then I'm glad, but here you always hear stories about how some careless girl turned in grandpa's war trophies for a gift card.[/QUOTE] I wonder how many posts like this we're gonna get until people read the damn article.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;53170267]I wonder how many posts like this we're gonna get until people read the damn article.[/QUOTE] I did read the article, it doesn't say for sure that relics weren't destroyed. It says a third was destroyed, and it's believable that with Australia's strict laws, they would include all automatics, which in turn includes historical weapons like the mentioned MG 08 and PPSh. I hope they were not destroyed, but it wouldn't be a surprise if they were, just a shame.

The PPSh wouldn't be that big of a loss (of course I'm of a mind that no antiques should be destroyed deliberately, [I]especially[/I] for asinine political reasons) but MG 08s are [I]really[/I] not common and they are a really powerful symbol of the Great War.

[QUOTE=Socram;53168825]I love how everyone is complaining/speculating about all the destroyed guns when it says right in the article that less than a third were destroyed.[/QUOTE] And? Old machine guns, submachine guns, and other full-auto or semi-auto guns of historical interest aren't legal in Australia so they're the ones that will be destroyed, not dime-a-dozen hunting rifles and the like. [quote]Almost a third of the weapons were destroyed, with the rest either registered and handed back, or passed on to a licensed dealer for resale.[/quote] In Australia a PPSh or MG08 can't be registered and can't be resold, so what do you think happened to them?

It sounds like (from someone's posts earlier in the thread) the government takes possession of unregisterable items of historical interest. Hopefully they end up in a museum where they belong instead of under a plasma torch.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53168505][IMG]http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/9496156-16x9-340x191.jpg[/IMG] I'm pretty sure this isn't even regulated under AU law as a pre-1900 black powder percussion cap muzzle loader. Good thing they got this evil hopelessly outdated museum piece off the streets.[/QUOTE] why is it that instead of focusing on the thousands and thousands of deadly firearms that WERE turned in, you make it about the handful of antiques that were? are you saying the whole initiate isn't worth it if a few antiques get destroyed in the process? the good here far outweighs this.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;53170846]why is it that instead of focusing on the thousands and thousands of deadly firearms that WERE turned in, you make it about the handful of antiques that were? are you saying the whole initiate isn't worth it if a few antiques get destroyed in the process? the good here far outweighs this.[/QUOTE] That's obviously not what I'm saying. I don't really care if new guns get scrapped, they are worthless to the historical register. I think it's stupid but beyond that I'm not really outraged, that is your country's prerogative. There's no reason antiques can't be saved, though, and it looks like the Australian government does take steps to avoid destroying them, so that's good, like I said above. But I think it's ridiculous that guns like that are even turning up in buybacks. You don't have to be pro-gun to see the historic value and the need to preserve things like that.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53170912]That's obviously not what I'm saying. I don't really care if new guns get scrapped, they are worthless to the historical register. I think it's stupid but beyond that I'm not really outraged, that is your country's prerogative. There's no reason antiques can't be saved, though, and it looks like the Australian government does take steps to avoid destroying them, so that's good, like I said above. [b]But I think it's ridiculous that guns like that are even turning up in buybacks[/b]. You don't have to be pro-gun to see the historic value and the need to preserve things like that.[/QUOTE] It’s not a regular buyback; it’s an amnesty. Chances are, virtually all of the guns that were handed in were either not registered, or their owners didn’t have the licence required to own them. Because it’s either hand them in at the amnesty, sell them on the black market, or risk criminal prosecution if the police discovered those guns outside of the amnesty period.

[QUOTE=BF;53171312]It’s not a regular buyback; it’s an amnesty. Chances are, virtually all of the guns that were handed in were either not registered, or their owners didn’t have the licence required to own them. Because it’s either hand them in at the amnesty, sell them on the black market, or risk criminal prosecution if the police discovered those guns outside of the amnesty period.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, somehow that slipped my mind. Regardless, I don't think the pistol shown is subject to any kind of regulation or license, so it still seems silly that it turned up at an amnesty. Australia should consider implementing some kind of legal exception for antique guns such as that MG 08. Obviously nobody's going to go commit a crime with it, so something should be in place to allow its owner to retain possession of it. Shame - at least it probably isn't going to the scrapper.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53171326]Oh yeah, somehow that slipped my mind. Regardless, I don't think the pistol shown is subject to any kind of regulation or license, so it still seems silly that it turned up at an amnesty. Australia should consider implementing some kind of legal exception for antique guns such as that MG 08. Obviously nobody's going to go commit a crime with it, so something should be in place to allow its owner to retain possession of it. Shame - at least it probably isn't going to the scrapper.[/QUOTE] People are allowed to collect antique guns, yeah. Need a licence to do that though. And I think most Australians are happy with things being that way.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;53169929]I feel like if someone tried to rob me with a rocket launcher I would be more confused than frightened[/QUOTE] 'why have you got a rocket launch-' *boom*

[QUOTE=Rusty100;53170846]why is it that instead of focusing on the thousands and thousands of deadly firearms that WERE turned in, you make it about the handful of antiques that were? are you saying the whole initiate isn't worth it if a few antiques get destroyed in the process? the good here far outweighs this.[/QUOTE] don't you think it'd be nice if we could reduce the gun supply [I]while[/I] preserving rare antiques like these?

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;53171514]don't you think it'd be nice if we could reduce the gun supply [I]while[/I] preserving rare antiques like these?[/QUOTE] Why does preserving these antiques even matter? A quick Google image search of the MG08, Martini-Henry Rifle etc will show dozens of examples already preserved in museums around the world. Sure, if there isn’t already one in a museum, then put it in one. But if there are already many similar examples in museums, what’s the point in adding another? It would be much more productive to have it dismantled and recycled if possible. How many museums would we need if we preserved absolutely everything that was old?

[QUOTE=BF;53171526]Why does preserving these antiques even matter? A quick Google image search of the MG08, Martini-Henry Rifle etc will show dozens of examples already preserved in museums around the world. Sure, if there isn’t already one in a museum, then put it in one. But if there are already many similar examples in museums, what’s the point in adding another? It would be much more productive to have it dismantled and recycled if possible. How many museums would we need if we preserved absolutely everything that was old?[/QUOTE] There's no reason NOT to preserve rare examples of things. As a significantly [I]anti-[/I]gun nut myself I think that so long as the weapons could not ever be practically fired under any circumstances, preserving them is A+.

-Apparently, the artifacts are not being destroyed. I read the article but not the thread- [editline]2nd March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=BF;53171526]Why does preserving these antiques even matter? A quick Google image search of the MG08, Martini-Henry Rifle etc will show dozens of examples already preserved in museums around the world. Sure, if there isn’t already one in a museum, then put it in one. But if there are already many similar examples in museums, what’s the point in adding another? It would be much more productive to have it dismantled and recycled if possible. How many museums would we need if we preserved absolutely everything that was old?[/QUOTE] Preserving any antique matters. When history is gone, it's gonezo. We recover information from artifacts that we've had for decades all the time, just because there was something about it that we weren't even looking for beforehand that suddenly becomes relevant. What about hundreds of years from now, when the countries that house those examples are conquered/hit with a terrible disaster/any other random event that we've seen through history? One by one, the artifact caches could theoretically disappear. Then, poof. Gone. There is no longer any record whatsoever that [event] happened.

[QUOTE=BF;53171526]Why does preserving these antiques even matter? A quick Google image search of the MG08, Martini-Henry Rifle etc will show dozens of examples already preserved in museums around the world. Sure, if there isn’t already one in a museum, then put it in one. But if there are already many similar examples in museums, what’s the point in adding another? It would be much more productive to have it dismantled and recycled if possible. How many museums would we need if we preserved absolutely everything that was old?[/QUOTE] This is a very dangerous line of thinking. You're proposing taking active measures to destroy rare antiquities because currently there's a few other examples sitting around. You sound like a Victorian - we have them to thank for leaving us with few to no untampered good condition medieval artifacts and sailing ships of the century prior to theirs. There's no harm in having it around. If a museum can't take it for some reason, a private collector would be happy to preserve if for future generations.

Also, let's not forget this extremely important fact: Wars shape history more powerfully than anything else (other than technology), and are [I]always[/I] recorded with an extreme slant. Wartime artifacts are unbelievably valuable for this reason.

[QUOTE=Matrix374;53170085]I dont know if I would feel threatened by a launcher unless the guy in question is 100+ meters away from me[/QUOTE] What if the guy turned around and hit you with the backblast?

The entire point of preserving historical artifacts is to preserve as many as possible, idk what’s hard formpeople to understand about that.

[QUOTE=BF;53171526]Why does preserving these antiques even matter? A quick Google image search of the MG08, Martini-Henry Rifle etc will show dozens of examples already preserved in museums around the world. Sure, if there isn’t already one in a museum, then put it in one. But if there are already many similar examples in museums, what’s the point in adding another? It would be much more productive to have it dismantled and recycled if possible. How many museums would we need if we preserved absolutely everything that was old?[/QUOTE] This is true but at the same time if people were turning in antiques that they would otherwise have kept then it's a bit of a shame. If they wanted to get rid of them for whatever reason but weren't able to do so before then I suppose I don't really have anything against that.

[QUOTE=bdd458;53172111]The entire point of preserving historical artifacts is to preserve as many as possible, idk what’s hard formpeople to understand about that.[/QUOTE] Not everything is unique enough or useful enough to allocate resources to preservation. The ideas of history matter a lot more than banal details. Archaeology itself is destructive as hell partially for those reasons.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53172287]Not everything is unique enough or useful enough to allocate resources to preservation. The ideas of history matter a lot more than banal details. Archaeology itself is destructive as hell partially for those reasons.[/QUOTE] But again, what's the problem with letting someone who wants to preserve an item preserve it? A large portion of any antiques collection consists of the "banal" - there's a lot to learn from the past and even small details have stories to tell. Not that MG 08s are "small" details by any means - they changed war and by extension changed the world. The Great War was hell on Earth. We'd do well to keep as many reminders of that around as possible. The information is one thing, and sure we'll always have the information, but actually having a real, physical artifact of it that participated in the fighting is another.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53172299]But again, what's the problem with letting someone who wants to preserve an item preserve it?[/QUOTE] Usually nothing if someone's up for it. With guns the government would probably want to disable it but yeah, I'd say that that'd be a good policy to ask if there's any takers before destroying something.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53172287]Not everything is unique enough or useful enough to allocate resources to preservation. The ideas of history matter a lot more than banal details. Archaeology itself is destructive as hell partially for those reasons.[/QUOTE] Mate, I work at museums. My advisor is one of the world's foremost Nautical Archaeologists. History is pretty much my career field. And let me tell you: You are wrong. The entire goal is to preserve for future generations as much as possible. It's why for example the UNESCO Convention for Underwater Cultural Heritage talks so much about preservation. Any artifacts must be documented in-situ, and preserved indefinitely. It doesn't matter if it's just a spoon, or a ship's rudder, or a dead-eye, or whatever - [I]each and every object tells a story that is to be preserved for the public and academics[/I]. No matter how boring or unispiring it is. Archeaologists realize that it's a destructive process, hence why full scale excavations tend to be less frequent these days. Once you tackle a site, you have to preserve everything you find. That is an expensive process, and often times leaving things in the ground is the safer alternative. When excavations do happen, they are so damn meticulous that you can pinpoint exactly what was where many years down the line and we draw clear conclusions about every object at the site. About every tool-mark on every timber. It's all important and people are able to revist the actual artifacts for interpretation.

The argument that we'll eventually run out of room or something if we preserve every antiquity we come across is conceivably true in a sense but we're a long way from that haha. I don't think it's a concern. Historic artifacts are destroyed by time and carelessness faster than measures to preserve them are taken. It's important to save what we can because unpredictable circumstances can destroy irreplaceable things on a moments' notice. Even if we've milked every last drop of knowledge out of an artifact, it's still worth keeping it around for as long as we can. It just seems ridiculous to take something that's been through so much hell, preserved against all odds by people who were passionate about it or by lucky storage conditions, and go, "pfft, we don't need that," and melt it down. If the upkeep cost is practically nothing and the only space it occupies is space someone is willing to give it and it represents no latent danger, I see no reason to even consider destroying a historic artifact whether it's "interesting" or not. When you start getting into things like buildings which are not always practical to repair and could crumble and hurt people the arguments for taking them down get stronger. But little things always have a place in someone's collection.