Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by n1 on Monday June 19, @04:44AM   Printer-friendly
from the up-in-arms dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

Australia has announced national gun amnesty, allowing people to hand in illegal or unregistered firearms to authorities. The move is aimed at curbing growing numbers of illegal weapons and comes amid an increased terrorist threat.

[...] The program starts on July 1 and within three months – until September 30 – anyone who possesses an unwanted or unregistered firearm, or a firearm-related item such as ammunition, can legally dispose of or register their firearm at "approved drop-off points in each State and Territory", without fear of being prosecuted, Justice Minister said.

Outside the amnesty period, however, those who are caught with illegal guns could face a fine of up to AU$280,000 (US$212,000), up to 14 years in prison and a criminal record.

“My expectation is it will probably not be the case that we will have hardened criminals who have made a big effort to get a hold on illegal guns would necessarily hand them in. The purpose is to reduce the number of unregistered and illicit firearms in the community,” Keenan said, as cited by AAP.

[...] Earlier this month, the authorities announced plans to build its first prison solely for militants with extreme views to prevent the radicalization of other inmates.

Source: RT


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @04:50AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @04:50AM (#527732)

    stupid fines coming from stupid politicians

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @04:57AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @04:57AM (#527736)

    I am happy to hear that gun amnesties are illegal in Australia but they are doing it anyway that takes balls.

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by FatPhil on Monday June 19, @06:46AM

      by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Monday June 19, @06:46AM (#527778) Homepage
      Given you're unable to recognise that most devious of English-language constructs, the hyphen. I'm guessing English isn't your native language.

      American?

      Ewww, looks like it. Please wipe off your chaw drool.
      --
      I was worried about my command. I was the scientist of the Holy Ghost.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @05:03AM (18 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @05:03AM (#527738)

    Will keep you alive when the need for revolution comes!

    Hold those fly by night guns tight,
    and when the lawman comes for you,
    give him quite the f(r)ight!

    • (Score: 5, Funny) by FatPhil on Monday June 19, @06:49AM (17 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Monday June 19, @06:49AM (#527779) Homepage
      You seem to have overlooked the fact that when you have a functioning democracy, you don't need a revolution.

      Let me guess - you come from a country with either a non-functioning democracy or no democracy at all? And apparently you're happier that way. Why?
      --
      I was worried about my command. I was the scientist of the Holy Ghost.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Monday June 19, @07:13AM (8 children)

        by kaszz (4211) on Monday June 19, @07:13AM (#527788) Journal

        Democracies can be subverted and then you might need to have leverage.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday June 19, @07:31AM (3 children)

          by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Monday June 19, @07:31AM (#527796) Homepage
          Democracies, unless set up to be unsubvertible right from the start will eventually subvert themselves. Duverger's Law being the most obvious example. However, once Duverger's Law has kicked in, you no longer have a functioning democracy. Cases in point - the US and the UK.

          There were hints in 1860, 1924, 1968, and 1992 that the US might be able to break free from its two-party stranglehold, but none came to fruition. Part of that is because of the insanely retarded "let's introduce enormous rounding errors in as many stages as possible" FPTP electoral college system that permits someone who receives 0.0001% of the popular vote to become the "democratically elected" president. And that's without any faithless electors - with those, you can get exactly *no* popular votes, and still become president! How that can be called a democracy at all boggles the mind.
          --
          I was worried about my command. I was the scientist of the Holy Ghost.
          • (Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 19, @03:30PM (2 children)

            by AthanasiusKircher (5291) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @03:30PM (#527959) Journal

            How that can be called a democracy at all boggles the mind.

            There's a difference between a (direct) democracy and a representative democracy. In direct democracies, the people vote directly for things. In representative democracies the people mostly vote for representatives who decide things. The Founders of the U.S. thought direct democracy was a VERY bad idea, based on historical precedent. So, they separated the people from directly voting on a number of things -- they could directly elect representatives to Congress, but senators would be elected by state representatives acting on behalf of the people. These are still democracies, since the people still have a voice in their governance (unlike, say, in an aristocracy or traditional monarchy, where the ultimate decision was left in the hands of officials who were not chosen directly or even indirectly by the people.)

            The Electoral College is similar measure, originally intended to be a group of folks who may know more about regional or national candidates than the average voter, back in the days before parties, political campaigns, etc. were an issue and most of the country was isolated and rural. So, the people delegated their presidential vote to representatives, just as they delegate their votes on legislation to Congress, etc.

            The Electoral College stopped functioning as intended after a few early elections, and it's basically been a complete fiction of sorts since around 1828 when most states adopted policies binding electors to parties based on majority votes in each state. What's truly ridiculous is that most states now even omit the names of electors on the ballots, when that's what you're actually voting for. No one was actually voting for Trump or Clinton last election -- they were actually voting for a slate of electors to represent them. That's a fundamental misrepresentation of the process.

            Anyhow, I agree with you that the Electoral College is completely dysfunctional and should be abolished, as well as your concerns about the problems with the two-party system. But democracies historically have always degraded... which is why the Founders actually tried experiments like the Electoral College. That WAS one of the safeguards built-in to try to prevent the democracy from "subverting" itself.

            • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 19, @03:34PM

              by AthanasiusKircher (5291) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @03:34PM (#527961) Journal

              Oh, and I should also point out there are MANY parliamentary democracies around the word where a "prime minister" or similar leader is chosen by a legislature, again -- people elect representatives who ultimately choose the leader. The Founders of the U.S. considered options to have Congress elect the President, which would have basically moved the U.S. in that direction too. But the Founders were concerned with corruption and wanted independent folks to select the president, rather than "political insiders" like Congressmen. Ultimately that experiment failed (and failed quickly), but that was the intent... which makes sense in theory, though it never really worked in practice.

            • (Score: 2) by Bot on Monday June 19, @10:45PM

              by Bot (3902) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @10:45PM (#528191)

              > representative democracy

              oxymoron detected.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @03:02PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @03:02PM (#527939)

          The muslims are certainly trying here.
          They scrape in millions with their halal tax.
          Recently they have started killing people and attacking police with inpunity.

          • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday June 19, @04:09PM

            by Wootery (2341) on Monday June 19, @04:09PM (#527975)

            Oh look at that, more lazy trolling posted as AC.

            If you already know you're wrong, why bother posting at all?

          • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday June 19, @05:27PM (1 child)

            by kaszz (4211) on Monday June 19, @05:27PM (#528036) Journal

            Halal tax on what? Is there any law to enforce that?

            There will be no Impunity as long as the three alphanumeric agencies are operative. There might be a continuous occurrences of smaller events but nothing really big. Speaking in terms of probability.

            • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday June 19, @09:50PM

              by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @09:50PM (#528170) Homepage Journal

              It's that tax on screaming "Halalalalalalalalalal" just before pushing the button on the bomb strapped to their chest and saying "Death to infidels!"

              I hear it's hard to collect on that tax, though.

              --
              --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @07:42AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @07:42AM (#527800)

        You seem to have overlooked the fact that when you have a functioning democracy, you don't need a revolution.

        An armed population is the primary manner in which a democracy continues to be a functioning democracy.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by unauthorized on Monday June 19, @09:35AM

          by unauthorized (3776) on Monday June 19, @09:35AM (#527822)

          I'm not against private gun ownership, but this is, to use the technical terms, fucking stupid.

          The primary means to ensure the continuation of a democracy is through political will. There are many democracies which function just fine without guns, and is a certain well-armed democracy which functions poorly even with guns. Tyrannical overtake is hardly the only threat to democracy.

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday June 19, @09:19PM (1 child)

          by bob_super (1357) on Monday June 19, @09:19PM (#528157)

          > An armed population is the primary manner in which a democracy continues to be a functioning democracy.

          Don't need to ask your nationality...
          The only armed thing that preserves a democracy is having police and military who only serve the people.

          • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday June 20, @02:49AM

            by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday June 20, @02:49AM (#528302)

            And we can see all over the world, even here at home in the US, how the police don't serve the people. Secondly, how many military dictatorships exist at present? Many.

      • (Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Monday June 19, @10:42AM (3 children)

        by art guerrilla (3082) on Monday June 19, @10:42AM (#527845)

        say wha ? ? ?
        PLEASE let me know where ONE 'functioning democracy' (yeah, let's see what definition that entails) exists on this dog-forsaken planet of grubby greedtard zillionaires running the show ? ? ?
        ONE functioning democracy...
        unless you proscribe the meaning of 'functioning' and/or 'democracy' to such a watered-down state that it has no meaning, there are ZERO functioning democracies...

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @11:48AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @11:48AM (#527856)

          functioning democracy, Athens. They foolishly decided to turn on their more militarily prow former allies, Sparta, and in turn got their asses kicked and their no longer functioning democracy crushed. But that is what happens when a group of overly successful and complacent fools get full of themselves: They make bad decisions and after grabbing everything else, they grab the tail of a dragon.

        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday June 19, @02:51PM (1 child)

          by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Monday June 19, @02:51PM (#527930) Homepage
          Anywhere with a plethora of parties, proportional representation, and accountability (or as the US calls it, "checks and balances") would fit.

          There are a bunch of them, I live in one. Being a small country where everyone knows everyone, and it's very hard to get away with corruption and lies for any length of time helps. OK, the fact that a huge minority of the people who live and vote locally are ignorant wastes of biomass means that I'm not super happy whither the demos is giving the kratos, but I accept that they so voted.

          Maybe you should get out and see more of the world, there's lots of varied countries out there.
          --
          I was worried about my command. I was the scientist of the Holy Ghost.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @08:10PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @08:10PM (#528116)

            maybe you shoud a new interpretarion framework. Democracy has been a facade for imperiaslism for a couple of centuries now. fuck off with your fantasyland BS

  • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @05:13AM (62 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @05:13AM (#527740)

    Australia is apparently a nation of sheep who like the taste of the bottom of a government boot.

    I've never been more glad I live in the US. With all the problems in the US, at least we haven't allowed the government to take guns away. And we
    never will, because millions of Americans will use all available means to prevent this happening.

    Spare me comments which try to convince me the police can protect me. The last time I called 911 it took the police 20 minutes to arrive. If anything serious was happening, in 20 minutes it would have been all over.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @06:01AM (10 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @06:01AM (#527758)

      Australia is apparently a nation of sheep who like the taste of the bottom of a government boot.

      I've never been more glad I live in the US. With all the problems in the US, at least we haven't allowed the government to take guns away. And we
      never will, because millions of Americans will use all available means to prevent this happening.

      Shit, America's gun owners aren't going to do anything to preserve freedom. When the pols rammed the "Patriot" Act through, America's gun owners didn't make a peep. It's like Herr Goering said, if you can keep people afraid, you can get them to do whatever you want, even if it's against their own interests. Guns or no guns.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by unauthorized on Monday June 19, @09:45AM (8 children)

        by unauthorized (3776) on Monday June 19, @09:45AM (#527825)

        An armed populace is a deterrent to illegitimate tyrannical suppression of civil freedom, not to legitimate elected bodies making terrible laws.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 19, @10:06AM

          It's both, just not to the same extent.

          --
          Save Ferris!
        • (Score: 2, Informative) by c0lo on Monday June 19, @01:01PM (6 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @01:01PM (#527874)

          Is there any difference between the two? 'Cause I don't see any in the effects.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by unauthorized on Monday June 19, @01:51PM (5 children)

            by unauthorized (3776) on Monday June 19, @01:51PM (#527901)

            The difference is that the later is done with the consent of the governed, begrudging as it may be. Violence is never an acceptable response to a political force acting in such a way.

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 19, @02:01PM (4 children)

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @02:01PM (#527907)

              Violence is never an acceptable response to a political force acting in such a way.

              Neither in the first case. Civil (and civilized) disobedience is a much effective way.

              • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Monday June 19, @02:32PM (2 children)

                by unauthorized (3776) on Monday June 19, @02:32PM (#527919)

                Civil (and civilized) disobedience is a much effective way.

                It didn't work for the anti-war protesters during the Vietnam conflict. I don't object to the notion that civil disobedience is preferable to civil war, but the former is not always a viable solution.

                Neither in the first case.

                Oh really? So suppose ikanreed's paranoid delusions are true and the United States is overtaken by literal jackboots-and-gaschambers nazi types in the near future. Authoritarians being what they are would have no problem marching down your streets and kidnapping some your friends over arbitrary criteria such as skin color, and shipping them off to some camp and never to be seen again.

                Would you contest that this would be an extremely tyrannical action? And if you don't, would you say that violence is unacceptable in this circumstance?

                • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 19, @03:24PM

                  by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @03:24PM (#527956)

                  Civil (and civilized) disobedience is a much effective way.

                  It didn't work for the anti-war protesters during the Vietnam conflict.

                  I believe it did. In any case, even letting aside some remarkable music festivals and exquisite cuisine massacrees [wikipedia.org], it had more effects than the Weather Underground.

                  And if you don't, would you say that violence is unacceptable in this circumstance?

                  Yes. Because it will achieve nothing but more deaths.
                  A general strike will, however.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23, @01:29PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23, @01:29PM (#530000)

                  We already do that. Naura and PNG. Don't enter our country without notice and agreement. Or be shipped to somewhere safe outside our border.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @02:55PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @02:55PM (#527933)

                Tell that to the French.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @05:29PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @05:29PM (#528039)

        it may depend on what happens with trump. i didn't vote for trump but he has "the right" convinced that he is trying to MAGA. if he is obstructed enough, impeached, assassinated, too much rioting, etc. you may see a serious reaction. the people with the largest caches of weapons, the groups with the most organization and training are also sympathetic to the gov. if they finally become aware that the gov is the enemy/beyond repair, or the marxists tear up too much shit, all bets are off.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by julian on Monday June 19, @06:07AM (35 children)

      by julian (6003) on Monday June 19, @06:07AM (#527763)

      The government will lay waste to your pathetic civilian arsenal. You would be absolutely flattened by heavy infantry with real military equipment, logistical support, air support, and training. The idea that your guns make you safe from this is a pathetic fantasy.

      Our civilization can't survive revolution. This was true when the first nuclear reactors turned on. We either navigate social change peacefully or we go back to hunting dear and telling stories by firelight.

      Fuck gun owners who think they stand for civilization. You're a speedbump to all the potential better futures humanity has. Fuck off and die, and I say that as a gun owner myself.

      --
      I am expecting written apologies from all Trump supporters when the indictments start
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @06:22AM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @06:22AM (#527770)

        ... and that was the U.S. military, which makes the Australian military look like a ragtag militia.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @06:57AM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @06:57AM (#527784)

          Oh, come on now. You're posting as AC, you have nothing to fear from moderators and the politically correct crowd. They aren't known as "sand people". Use the common vernacular. Sand niggers. Try it, "sand niggers". "camel jockies", "ragheads", try them all. It's one thing to act like a pussy if you're worried about moderators, but as AC you have no worries. Stop being a pussy. Fuck the politically correct crowd.

          • (Score: 2) by Kell on Monday June 19, @08:34AM (2 children)

            by Kell (292) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @08:34AM (#527813)

            Clearly you have never actually been to Australia. You know... those guys who had that "white Australia policy" not so long ago?

            --
            Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
            • (Score: 2) by gawdonblue on Monday June 19, @10:44AM (1 child)

              by gawdonblue (412) on Monday June 19, @10:44AM (#527846)

              Clearly you have never actually been to Australia. You know... those guys who had that "white Australia policy" not so long ago?

              Q. How was the "White Australia Policy" enforced?
              A. A strict English test for potential immigrants.

              Q. What has the Australian Federal Government just (re)introduced?
              A. A strict English test for potential immigrants.

              But this time it's not going to be used to target non-whites for refusal. Promise.

              • (Score: 2) by Kell on Monday June 19, @11:32AM

                by Kell (292) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @11:32AM (#527854)

                Yeah, sure; I get that. My point was that the GP seemed to have mistaken Australia for somewhere in the middle east with distinctly different demographics.

                --
                Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 19, @06:51AM (14 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @06:51AM (#527781) Journal

        Once again, the tired old argument. "The army will defeat you!"

        In a civil war, it isn't a matter of the people rising up against the army, to be flattened. Instead, you start off with an information and propaganda war. Each individual soldier, sailor, and airman is exposed to all the propaganda, from both sides. Each individual considers all the bullshit, and makes his own decisions. Pretty much all servicemen will work to keep the peace, but when the shit hits the fan - well, sometimes the movies get it half-right. Everyone will make his own decision, for his own reasons, which side he supports. That goes for high ranking officers, and the private grunt in the trenches. Tank commanders, and wing commanders alike will make their own personal decisions.

        It can't be your belief that everyone in the service, on any given day/month/year has complete faith in the government? That all of them have been brainwashed to believe one ideology, or another?

        Put yourself in their places. People in your own hometown are squawking, bitching, and working themselves up to open rebellion. Your company commander tells you that you are going into your hometown, to put down the rebellion. Are you willing to shoot at your own kinfolk? The people you went to school with? Maybe your own teachers? The cop who gave you a break when he caught you doing something stupid?

        Maybe you need to read up on the Civil War, and how it tore families apart.

        https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/CNGR_General-Flag-Officer-Authorizations.pdf [loc.gov]
        Current General/Flag Officer Authorizations: Number Ceilings In prescribing the DOD-wide ceilings for G/FOs for both the active and reserve components, Title 10 gives the basic total of senior officers that each component is not to exceed, plus certain exemptions that do not count against the authorized officer end strength for that component. As described below, these exemptions from end strength counts mainly involve, in the active components, joint-duty positions and, in the reserve components, positions that entail responsibilities prescribed under Title 32 of the U.S. Code. The current basic authorization for active-duty G/FOs, minus exemptions, is 877 (10 U.S.C. 526(a)). This number was first established when the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 slightly raised the DOD-wide ceiling by incorporating the 1996 authorization of 12 additional G/FO positions for the Marine Corps.11 The current authorization for reserve component G/FOs is 422

        It is possible that you actually believe that congress is a united body of people, with no differences in opinions and political views. I don't know HOW you could have such a belief, but I guess some people could be that naive. Every issue that comes before congress has it's proponents and opponents, within congress. Given that fact, how could you believe that among about 1200 flag officers in the active and reserve military, all of them would be in agreement over a major rift in American politics? Roughly 1200 flag officers, all in lockstep, and willing to turn their forces against the civilian populaiton? Really? What is it that makes you believe such a thing is possible?

        Stepping down a step from flag officers, what makes you believe that every officer from Navy Captain or Army Colonel on down will support firing on lightly armed civilians?

        Now, just fuck all the officers - let's consider the enlisted men and women. Officers don't get shit done - they are only there to tell the troops what needs to be done. Do you believe that every single gnarly assed old Gunnery Sergeant will blindly follow illegal orders to fire on his fellow Americans? Or, do you suppose that Gunny might turn his troops on the half-wit lieutenant who gave those orders?

        Julian, if the shit hits the fan, you are in for a lot of very big surprises. And, few of them are likely to be pleasant.

        Now, finally, consider that the US Military often allies itself with, and makes use of, all sorts of armed groups of people in it's overseas campaigns. If there were little or no value in armed civilians and militias, why would the army even take notice of them overseas? At the same time, our military often sees actian against armed civlians and militias. Again, if they had little or no value, why would the military even take notice of them?

        Maybe you've heard of these people? https://www.oathkeepers.org/ [oathkeepers.org]

        --
        This broadcast is intended for mature audiences.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @07:26AM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @07:26AM (#527794)

          We have these things call planes now. You can deploy troops quite aways from their hometowns.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 19, @08:10AM (2 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @08:10AM (#527804) Journal

            And, you're holding out some bit of technology, hoping that it will trump people's loyalties? Maybe you'll rely on yet another bit of technology - maybe an algorithm that prevents any individual from ever being assigned a duty station within their home state/county/city?

            --
            This broadcast is intended for mature audiences.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @01:01PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @01:01PM (#527875)

              The Sheeple in the US are already brainwashed idiots. It's not hard to get a bunch of soldiers riled up and point them in the right direction.

            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 19, @01:24PM

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @01:24PM (#527886)

              Maybe you'll rely on yet another bit of technology - maybe an algorithm that prevents any individual from ever being assigned a duty station within their home state/county/city?

              How easy is to sort this things out. You know where they were born, you know where their next of kin lives. Order them to fill in a form with the 5 states most of their relatives are in. Transfer them in states where they don't know anyone.

              It worked under the former communist regimes in Eastern Europe (and most probably in USSR), in times when army service was compulsory.
              One was never assigned to serve in the army close to home. Took generalized uprising for the army to refuse to intervene - many small uprisings you never heard of were smothered by secret police and the army.

          • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday June 20, @02:56AM

            by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday June 20, @02:56AM (#528304)

            Yes. And the internet. And those phones have video recorders. And so when some Ohio kid stationed in Wyoming sees he's his compatriots blowing up Ohio, he might think about things.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @08:13AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @08:13AM (#527805)

          You forget that robot armies are on their way. Not many will need to be convinced to fire on some armed militia. Orders will be given to clear an area, and the robot armies will do it effectively. No conscience to worry about.

          It is quite easy to see actually, when you connect the dots. David Icke tells about this all the time ... Oops ... I forgot that you don't like Icke any longer. But the truth he tells still matters.

          • (Score: 2) by Kell on Monday June 19, @08:37AM

            by Kell (292) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @08:37AM (#527815)

            +1 depressing truth

            --
            Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 19, @12:12PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @12:12PM (#527865) Journal

            Unfortunately, there's a lot of truth in your post. Robot armies are coming, drones are here already. Robot soldiers will change things, but none of us can say exactly how things will change. But, it's worth keeping in mind that much of the government does a pretty crappy job of security. The rebel side may very well turn the robots on their owners. Or, they may run amok, and kill both sides. The most likely scenario is, the flag officers will be divided, as well as junior officers. Some will have command of some of the robots, others will have command of the rest, and the robots will be battling each other.

            So, even with robots, the government's victory isn't assured.

            --
            This broadcast is intended for mature audiences.
        • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Monday June 19, @04:16PM (4 children)

          by Wootery (2341) on Monday June 19, @04:16PM (#527979)

          It's not impossible that things could slowly worsen to the point that the military really would be willing to kill their own civilians though, right? North Korea happened, after all.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 19, @05:31PM (1 child)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @05:31PM (#528041) Journal

            If we get to that point - then we deserve whatever. We've had generations of forefathers who warned us to safeguard our liberties. If we permit the government to bring us to the point you describe, then we simply deserve what they dish out to us.

            --
            This broadcast is intended for mature audiences.
            • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday June 20, @08:37AM

              by Wootery (2341) on Tuesday June 20, @08:37AM (#528380)

              Maybe so, but it's not really the point. Americans already voted in a man who lies constantly (with all the skill of a toddler) who idolises Putin. It's been a pretty poor show recently, on the eternal vigilance front.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday June 19, @10:39PM (1 child)

            by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Monday June 19, @10:39PM (#528189)

            t's not impossible that things could slowly worsen to the point that the military really would be willing to kill their own civilians though, right?

            Your right, it is not impossible, and anyone who thinks it is needs to remember that Kent State [wikipedia.org] already happened. And as you point out it is just a matter of time before it happens again.

            We need to keep in mind that theo soldiers at Kent State where National Guard, aka "Weekend Warriors", and they still carried out the order to fire. Army and other career military personal will be even more likely to follow an order to open fire on peaceful, unarmed civilians due to the constant exposure and adherence to the ridged command structure of the military services. That same ridged structure is what has ensured It just hasn't happened yet, but that doesn't mean it won't.

            --
            "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday June 19, @05:22PM

          by aristarchus (2645) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @05:22PM (#528032) Journal

          Maybe you've heard of these people? /www.oathkeepers.org/

          Oh, those> people! Here is one of them, explaining why he won't be home for Christmas, because he needs to go join a bunch of Jolly Ranchers with a plethora of sex toys:

          "Daddy took an Oath!" [youtube.com]

          Started quite the meme outbreak.

          Even Jesse Ventura [youtube.com] thinks they may be a bit too, um, extreme.

          And, End Scene [youtube.com]

          Nothing like fomenting treason under the cover of patriotism! The South will Lose Again.

          --
          came from aris5tarcfhus..; wee probably shouldn't run it
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday June 19, @07:12AM (5 children)

        by hemocyanin (186) on Monday June 19, @07:12AM (#527787)

        http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/ [mintpressnews.com]

        The National Rifle Association (NRA) would have you believe that guns stop murders. The gun control lobby would have you believe that gun control reduces murders. They are both wrong. Gun bans have always had the same effect once implemented: none. They do not create a (sustained) period of increased murders, nor do they reduce the rate of homicides. The gun control crowd is currently stomping their feet and screaming “No, it reduces violence! I’ve seen the statistics.” What you probably saw were studies that point to reduced instances of “gun murders,” not murder.

        ...

        United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.

        Ireland: Ireland banned firearms in 1972. Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly static going all the way back to 1945. In that period, it fluctuated between 0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Immediately after the ban, the murder rate shot up to 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1975. It then dropped back down to 0.4. It has trended up, reaching 1.4 in 2007.

        Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.

        • (Score: 2) by J_Darnley on Monday June 19, @11:12AM (2 children)

          by J_Darnley (5679) on Monday June 19, @11:12AM (#527849)

          Ah the UK. The country where throwing your pint at the charging islamist radical is supposed to stop them.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @11:55AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @11:55AM (#527858)

            It might?

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 19, @01:39PM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @01:39PM (#527894)

            The country where throwing your pint at the charging islamist radical is supposed to stop them.

            Never ever. If you throw your pint of beer at them, the terrorist have won!
            I kid you not, the pure-at-heart Englishman will always take the pint of beer with him, as an act of defiance against terrorism [businessinsider.com]

        • (Score: 1) by j-beda on Monday June 19, @03:12PM (1 child)

          by j-beda (6342) on Monday June 19, @03:12PM (#527952) Homepage

          Australia does seem to have had a pretty big drop in large scale/spree shootings however.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia [wikipedia.org]

          • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday June 20, @02:31AM

            by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday June 20, @02:31AM (#528296)

            Don't worry. Everyone is figuring out that cars and trucks are dangerous.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 19, @10:12AM (7 children)

        You never served, did you? I have and I tell you right now there is no way in hell the US military could take US gun owners. For starters they'd be at a 100:1 numerical disadvantage. For another they'd be shooting at their fathers and brothers. For another, their adversaries look precisely like peaceful citizens, right until they don't. Go around a corner and they're peaceful citizens again. No, we do not have a military capable of subjugating its populace if said populace does not want to be subjugated.

        --
        Save Ferris!
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday June 19, @01:46PM (3 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @01:46PM (#527899)

          Don't kid yourself.
          Deploy Alaskan troops in California, Massachusetts troops in fly-over-country, and Arkansas troops in New York, and tell them "They voted Hillary/Trump, they mocked Palin; they are responsible for the mess we are in and look, the fools a rebelling now, teach them a lesson".

          • (Score: 2) by tibman on Monday June 19, @02:50PM (2 children)

            by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @02:50PM (#527928)

            Have to jump in here. The (Active) US Army isn't organized by state. A "unit" is made up of people from potentially all States and Territories. The Army considers it good to have diversity and different view points. Reserve and National Guard are inactive parts of the US Army that are organized by state. The National Guard is controlled by each State's Governor, not the President. I have no idea how fighting ready the Reserves are, tbh. But they would fit your criteria.

            --
            SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
            • (Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday June 19, @10:57PM (1 child)

              by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Monday June 19, @10:57PM (#528194)

              Actually the POTUS can take control of the National Guard "in time of natural disasters or other public emergencies" and override a Governor's authority.

              http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2007/01/12/governors-lose-in-power-struggle-over-national-guard/ [tenthamendmentcenter.com]

              So if the POTUS had to declare martial law due to "continuing terrorist threats" after something like, say a series of coordinated bombings across the US, he could do whatever he wanted with the NG units, including move them to different states.

              --
              "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
        • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday June 20, @03:35AM (2 children)

          by dry (223) on Tuesday June 20, @03:35AM (#528322)

          It won't be a 100:1 numerical disadvantage. The way these things usually go is aprox. 1/3rd for, 1/3rd against and 1/3rd indifferent. It'll be the army along with 1/3rd of the population against the other 1/3rd.

          • (Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday June 20, @04:30AM

            by tftp (806) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 20, @04:30AM (#528333) Homepage

            I can't see how the 1/3 "against" (siding with the troops) will choose to illegally shoot and kill people in support of the government position. They will be seen by the soldiers as militants and killed on sight. If your original ratio is correct, then it will be like this:

            1/3 for, and fighting; 1/3 against, sitting at home and watching TV; 1/3 neutral, helping neither side.

            If the confiscation of guns is announced, a significant number of weapons will be "lost" or "destroyed" in many unverifiable accidents. For example, "man, I was so scared of my guns, I took a plasma cutter to them all, until nothing was left but glowing droplets of steel." How would a soldier prove the contrary? Many gun owners do not store the weapons where they live (because of young children, for example.) Where do they store them? That's a completely different question, and the answer won't be discovered until the soldiers search every nook and cranny of the whole country - which is not even remotely feasible.

          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 20, @10:19AM

            I'm curious, how much of the Army do you think will follow orders when told to violate their oath to "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." when doing so means shooting their friends and family? Do you think people who signed up to carry guns for their nation are anti-gun-types?

            --
            Save Ferris!
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @06:04PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @06:04PM (#528060)

        insurgency is battle proven to be a pain in the ass for any large military to deal with. even though the US has been getting lots of practice the US civilian population is *heavily* armed. also, the military will not simply side against the american people in one organized group of traitors. a high percentage of volunteer soldiers believe in the constitution. They are just like the political right: they've just been too brainwashed to see how bad it really is. many will notice when they are asked to attack their own people/take their guns. also, you can't operate all of your military bases behind "enemy" lines and expect things to run smoothly. someone has to put fuel in the planes or plug the drones in at night. what if half of your support people are aligned with the resistance? what if everything you try to do is behind enemy lines while being attacked 24/7 because you are trying to fight 100 million gun owners? if they are smart, they will continue to try to make us self destruct with race baiting, economic problems, food shortages, etc. then we could just kill each other in large numbers until shit was bad enough to where the soldiers could easily believe they were helping when they roll in with the tanks and the people would be so hungry and tired of fighting they would just cry in relief at the mere site of them. you know, what gun dealers, banks and govs do to africa all the time.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday June 19, @06:50AM (2 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Monday June 19, @06:50AM (#527780) Homepage
      OK, let me guess, English isn't your native language, because this story is about illegal guns, not legal ones.
      --
      I was worried about my command. I was the scientist of the Holy Ghost.
      • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @01:19PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @01:19PM (#527882)

        You mean "Undocumented" guns. How can a gun be illegal?

        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday June 20, @08:02AM

          by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Tuesday June 20, @08:02AM (#528368) Homepage
          Stop being retarded on the internet for laughs. An illegal gun is a gun which by virtue of its posession causes a law to be broken. The gun may not have agency in this matter, but it is the sine qua non.

          Look up "trope" in a dictionary. Read some literature on the subject of rhetoric. Start in ancient Greece, Aristotle, Socrates, etc. Don't get back to us until you've learnt something.
          --
          I was worried about my command. I was the scientist of the Holy Ghost.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @06:53AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @06:53AM (#527783)

      It may not be the police that one should fear but the thugs that the police is to afraid to confront because.. racism. That seems to be the case in Melbourne and the Apex gang at least. Protecting oneself with a knife or bat is not that easy when opposed by several fight experienced and drugged thugs. So better tools, ie guns would be better. But then they are illegal in practice. Any ideas how to deter violent gangs alone?

      There is a one dilemma though. If one happen to kill a home invader in Australia a lawyer says that it can still render you 10-14 years in prison for manslaughter a lesser degree of murder charge. So how to defend without being stabbed in the back by the justice system? (which is a joke when it matters according to reports)

      15-129 Home Invasion - Seacombe Gardens [youtube.com]
      Nine News. Hotbed Home Invasion Stats.(Multicultural Nightmare Melbourne) [youtube.com]
      African Migrants on a crime spree across Australia [youtube.com]
      Nine News. African Gangs Crime Sweep Melbourne Beaches Attacking Australians [youtube.com]
      ACA. Enough Is Enough. (People Fight Back Black Apex Gangs) [youtube.com]
      Seven + Nine News. Blacks Attack Autistic Boy On Bus. (Want Phone + Runners. Tarneit) [youtube.com]
      Nine News. Fighting Back. (Attacked Autistic Boy's Family Crime Feedback) [youtube.com]
      Nine News. Out Of Control. (Black African Apex Gang Attacks Melbourne) [youtube.com]

      Nine News. Gang Fight. (Former Apex Gang Member Talks) [youtube.com]
      Btw this former gang member says its all about being with the bad crowd at the wrong time and place to start participate in the bad activities. That they left all family and friends behind and have to start all over again. And that they need more youth workers. Of course he also think they shouldn't be put away or deported. On the other hand what's in it for Australians to keep these people around?

      • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday June 19, @07:15AM (2 children)

        by Mykl (1112) on Monday June 19, @07:15AM (#527790)

        Apex has pretty much been shut down now. By the police. True, they did commit a spate of violent crimes, however no deaths have been linked to their activities.

        The Current Affairs articles about them are a bit of a beat-up too - a ratings grab.

        I would feel much less safe walking around in downtown Dallas than in Melbourne.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @04:52PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @04:52PM (#528002)

          So immigrant gangs is not a big problem in Australia anymore? ie shutting down one gang only to have another one appear.

          • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday June 19, @10:53PM

            by Mykl (1112) on Monday June 19, @10:53PM (#528192)

            So immigrant gangs is not a big problem in Australia anymore?

            Correct, immigrant gangs are not a big problem in Australia

    • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday June 19, @07:06AM (6 children)

      by Mykl (1112) on Monday June 19, @07:06AM (#527786)

      And yet, despite your 'Murican Freedom, you feel you must post AC to hide behind the veil of anonymity, lest you place yourself in danger...

      You do realize that the time for you to take up arms against your corrupt government was decades ago? So, how's that going for you? Just when will it get bad enough for 'the people' to actually rise up? If you think the answer is 'ever', you're dreaming. The Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security are two of the most oppressive anti-citizen measures in the Western World, and you still think the 2nd Amendment gives you freedom?

      Australia's a nice place - you should visit sometime. Higher median wages, lower unemployment, lower crime, better health cover, greater access to education, lower corruption, much lower death-by-cop. And much less chance of being shot. Over the past 20 years, there have been ZERO mass shootings in Australia. Sure, you might have to fend off the odd Drop Bear or two, but they help to keep the spiders and snakes under control so it's a balancing act.

      • (Score: 2) by coolgopher on Monday June 19, @08:15AM (2 children)

        by coolgopher (1157) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @08:15AM (#527806)

        Blimey, funniest thing I never saw was a drop bear chasing after a hoop snake downhill, strewth!

        • (Score: 2) by Kell on Monday June 19, @08:38AM (1 child)

          by Kell (292) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @08:38AM (#527816)

          You think it's funny, but a dropbear killed my family.

          --
          Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
          • (Score: 5, Informative) by MostCynical on Monday June 19, @12:32PM

            by MostCynical (2589) on Monday June 19, @12:32PM (#527868)

            That's why you shouldn't pitch your tent under any trees where drop-bears might live.

            --
            (Score: tau, Irrational)
      • (Score: 1) by j-beda on Monday June 19, @03:22PM

        by j-beda (6342) on Monday June 19, @03:22PM (#527955) Homepage

        Over the past 20 years, there have been ZERO mass shootings in Australia.

        Not quite zero, but certainly better than before 1997: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia [wikipedia.org]

        2002, 2011, 2014 compared to 96, 96, 93, 92, 91, 90, 88, 87, 87, 87, 84, 84, 81, 76

        Of course it depends on one's definition of "mass shooting". Tighten the definition to exclude the most recent few and one would also need to exculde some of the earlier ones.

        Overall, I think the Australian ban was a good idea.

        And the population seems to agree, even though significan number of Americans think it was a bad idea, strangely enough.

      • (Score: 1) by redneckmother on Monday June 19, @04:36PM (1 child)

        by redneckmother (3597) on Monday June 19, @04:36PM (#527994)

        "you should visit sometime"

        I'd love to! Can I bring my firearms? (grin)

        Actually, I'd love to see the places my uncles were stationed (US 1st Cav) during WWII. I'd like to meet the descendants of the friends they made, and enjoy some REAL beer with them.

        --
        Pitchforks? Check. Torches? Check. Lampposts? Check. Rope? Oh crap, Colorado smoked all the Hemp!
        • (Score: 2) by Absolutely.Geek on Tuesday June 20, @01:18AM

          by Absolutely.Geek (5328) on Tuesday June 20, @01:18AM (#528275)

          If you want real beer keep flying stop off in New Zealand first then head back to Oz.

          --
          Don't trust the police or the government - Shihad: My mind's sedate.
    • (Score: 1) by corey on Tuesday June 20, @09:35PM

      by corey (2202) on Tuesday June 20, @09:35PM (#528737)

      I've never been more glad I live in Australia. I like goimg to public places not having to worry about some looney going mental with a semi auto , and sending my kids to school knowing they won't get shot by some kid with mental health problems.

      I live in Melbourne and there's nowhere on this city I can imagine going and be fearful of being shot. I've been to south LA and I certainly felt it there. We don't live with the feverish belief in kill other people in order to avoid being killed ourselves, because there aren't heavily armed wankers walking the streets. Yeah sometimes bikies shoot up eacjother or crime gangs but they usually leave the public alone.

      I rather be in a place where guns are banned*, because it feels a whole lot safer on the streets.

      I once looked up some stats after reading an article about Chicago people protesting about so many deaths due to guns. I read that in a day, or was it a week, can't remember, there were more homicides due to guns in the one city than in all of Australia in a year, by an order of magnitude.
      How is that a good outcome?

      (* except obviously for farmers, gun hobbyists etc)

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @05:19AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @05:19AM (#527741)

    "“My expectation is it will probably not be the case that we will have hardened criminals who have made a big effort to get a hold on illegal guns would necessarily hand them in.” - Keenan

    You can't make this shit up, I tell you.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday June 19, @09:27PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Monday June 19, @09:27PM (#528161)

      Outside of a few rare-if-overly-publicized lunatics, criminals don't want to use their weapons.
      A criminal sure of his upper hand is less likely to cause unnecessary injury. Victims who are still alive can resort to simple civilized ways to recover their losses.

      If you don't take my word for it, you can check Australian crime stats.

      I'll let you try to pull your 9mm out when some guy's already got a shotgun pointed at you. The internet is full of American armchair heroes.

  • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @05:24AM (22 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @05:24AM (#527742)

    Politicians admit the truth, they have no intention of taking guns away from the criminals, they only want to take them away from the law-abiding citizens.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Monday June 19, @05:54AM (21 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @05:54AM (#527756)

      they only want to take them away from the law-abiding citizens.

      Gun ownership in Australia is not prohibited: law abiding ozzies can get gun licenses and register the guns (except those of military-used types, like machine guns, rocket launchers, full automatic self loading rifles, flame-throwers and anti-tank guns).

      Even minors between 11-12 and 17 yo can get [vic.gov.au] a license [qld.gov.au] to use guns [nsw.gov.au] (but not to own them).

      • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday June 19, @06:19AM (15 children)

        by mhajicek (51) on Monday June 19, @06:19AM (#527768)

        Actually the kinds you can have legally are quite limited.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 19, @06:29AM (14 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @06:29AM (#527772)

          Just from curiosity: what arms would you think Ozzies should have access to but they are not legally allowed to?

          • (Score: 4, Funny) by MostCynical on Monday June 19, @08:18AM (1 child)

            by MostCynical (2589) on Monday June 19, @08:18AM (#527808)

            Bazookas. Always wanted one for outside-lane hogs, for when the horn and high beam doesn't work...

            --
            (Score: tau, Irrational)
            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 19, @01:53PM

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @01:53PM (#527903)

              No need. Just carry a tree with a nest of drop bears with you and plant it above those hogs when you see them. The nature will run its course and you don't need a license to carry that tree.

          • (Score: 2) by Kell on Monday June 19, @08:40AM

            by Kell (292) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @08:40AM (#527817)

            I, for one, would like to get a Bondarms Bullpup to carry in my pocket, but they are illegal for being too short.

            --
            Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @10:28AM (10 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @10:28AM (#527841)

            First, there's the obvious question of self-defence against humans, and the right to carry arms for that purpose. The radical disagreement that the sort of Americans who find fault with Australia's gun laws tend to have on this should be so obvious that I'm not even going to address it further.

            Semiautomatic rifles in any centerfire cartridge, for one; not allowed for hunting or sport shooting.

            Handguns (of certain types, barrel lengths, etc.) are permitted, but restricted to sport shooting at designated clubs (or for employment, e.g. armed security); AIUI there's no way for a normal guy to carry one in the field, not even for hunting. Here in the rural USA, I can't be arsed to carry a rifle around every day, but I frequently carry a 22 magnum revolver with both ratshot and bullets for opportunistic pest control; AIUI this would not be permitted with any license in Australia. (Don't they have nasty snakes, to say nothing of rabbits?)

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @11:51AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @11:51AM (#527857)

              Saltwater crocodiles too large for a .22 to have much effect :)

              But now you know why Crocodile Dundee only carried a Bowie knife: The gun control didn't give him an alternative :P

            • (Score: 2) by coolgopher on Monday June 19, @01:01PM

              by coolgopher (1157) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @01:01PM (#527876)

              We try not to shoot the snakes, they keep the other pests under control. Don't step on them, don't ride the lawnmower over them, and you're typically good. If there's a need, there's the shotgun though. For rabbits, .22 is the go-to afaiu.

            • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Monday June 19, @01:22PM (7 children)

              by deimtee (3272) on Monday June 19, @01:22PM (#527885)

              I pretty sure professional feral pig shooters carry a hefty sidearm as backup to their rifles. At least they used to back when I knew one. Those pigs are bloody dangerous, ever seen the documentory "Razorback"?
              As for shooting snakes, it doesn't matter how venomous the bastards are, they are protected under Australian law, so arguing you need to sheet them isn't going to get you anywhere.
              For rabbits and foxes you use a shotgun or a 22. Just about anyone who would be in position to shoot vermin can get a licence for those.

              • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday June 19, @04:57PM (2 children)

                by kaszz (4211) on Monday June 19, @04:57PM (#528006) Journal

                Doubt anyone faced with a deadly snake at home would consider the law.

                • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Monday June 19, @05:18PM

                  by deimtee (3272) on Monday June 19, @05:18PM (#528030)

                  Depends on the person. A few years ago, yeah dead snake and fuck the law. Now a majority would probably call the local council and get a snake catcher sent around.
                  But that wasn't the point anyway. Arguing that you need a gun to shoot snakes isn't going to work because you're not allowed to shoot them.

                  Also, how the hell did I manage to typo "sheet them"?. I need to sleep. :)

                • (Score: 2) by gawdonblue on Monday June 19, @09:11PM

                  by gawdonblue (412) on Monday June 19, @09:11PM (#528150)

                  The only snakes you're going to able to shoot with a handgun are too slow to bother you. Death adders, red-bellies and the like. Leave them alone and everyone goes home happy. On the other hand, if an eastern brown decides he doesn't like you then you'll have a couple of puncture marks by the time you got your handgun out. At best you might get a couple of shots off, but you'll most likely miss the snake and really piss it off to make sure it envenoms the bite.

                  In Australia: guns don't kill snakes, (stupid) people (try to) kill snakes.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @06:52PM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @06:52PM (#528082)

                Thanks for the clarifications.

                Professional hog hunters, though -- as in, do it for a living, so same deal as an armed security guard, right? (Not seen that documentary, but my uncle shoots wild hogs in Louisiana, so I know a little about them.) But when I speak of handguns for hunting, I'm thinking more like going for a walk in the woods in deer season, with a magnum revolver on your hip, and if you happen to get close enough to a deer, you shoot it and fill the freezer. And if not, well, you've had a pleasant walk in the woods, unencumbered by a rifle, and you can try again later. AIUI, this sort of thing is completely off-limits in Australia.

                Yeah, I get that you guys can have a rimfire rifle/carbine or a shotgun quite easily enough, and those are the same tools I use if I'm going out specifically to shoot pests. It's just that a handgun really is so practical to always have with you, in case you see a bunny while walking to the coop or barn, or even while driving the tractor, etc.. (Although I've been thinking of putting a shotgun scabbard on the tractor -- which is as much about deciding on the right gun as the actual scabbard. Light & handy, mild enough for the ladies of the house to use -- torn between a 20ga side-by-side and a KSG with light loads. But I'm drifting off-topic.)

                About snakes -- I would assume there's an exception for self-defense in immediate danger, but fair enough; AIUI (I don't live in dangerous snake country) if you see a snake soon enough to shoot it, it's more than likely soon enough to back off anyway, so such an exception wouldn't much justify pistol packing.

                FWIW, I mainly shoot cottontails, both for the good of the orchard (nasty beasts will eat a ring of bark right around an apple tree, which kills it, when the snow gets deep) and so the neighborhood remains unattractive for coyotes. Coons, possums, feral cats, etc. are all shot on sight, but we get more cottontails than all predators combined. (Oh, not to forget such house sparrows as choose to live and die in the chicken coop.)

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20, @12:15AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 20, @12:15AM (#528225)

                  If gun restrictions is a problem for acquiring a pipe gun then there's always crossbows etc that has been used for 2600 years. The upside is they are silent, efficient can be manufactured without too much complication.

                • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday June 20, @02:01PM

                  by deimtee (3272) on Tuesday June 20, @02:01PM (#528445)

                  Sorry, I was kidding about razorback being a documentary. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087981/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 [imdb.com]

              • (Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday June 20, @04:44AM

                by tftp (806) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 20, @04:44AM (#528335) Homepage

                For rabbits and foxes you use a shotgun or a 22.

                Most .22LR are inhumane to shoot foxes with. Spare a cheap V-Max .223 on it. Even a rabbit would prefer a .17HMR. A .22LR wound is often deadly, but it may take a whole day for the animal to die.

      • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday June 19, @07:14AM (3 children)

        by hemocyanin (186) on Monday June 19, @07:14AM (#527789)

        Redundant: machine guns ... full automatic self loading rifles

        These are the same thing.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 19, @07:45AM (2 children)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 19, @07:45AM (#527801)

          Does a Anti Aircraft machine gun (like this one [wikipedia.org]) qualify as a rifle?
          Because it is a machine gun alright

          • (Score: 2) by driverless on Monday June 19, @10:31AM

            by driverless (4770) on Monday June 19, @10:31AM (#527842)

            You call that a rifle? This [wikimedia.org] is a rifle.

          • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday June 20, @02:41AM

            by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday June 20, @02:41AM (#528299)

            I checked Cabellas' website -- no anti-aircraft guns to be had online or in stores -- likely due to the fact that machine guns and automatic rifles have been banned for ages unless you get a very expensive license from the Feds.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @02:38PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, @02:38PM (#527921)

        No semi autos at all. No handguns.

(1) 2