Gun Amnesty in Australia Produces Mostly "Rubbish Guns" According to Expert

Status
Not open for further replies.

Speedo66

Member
Joined
May 31, 2008
Messages
11,066
Location
Flatlandistan
Australia is having a national amnesty period to turn in guns. However, according to experts there, while calling the amnesty "a real success", what they're actually getting is "rubbish guns", that is, mostly long guns which admittedly are of no use to criminals. Are the criminals turning in their guns? Probably not according to the same expert.

Sounds like the amnesty is really going to crush crime, no?

While the PR photo shows lots of evil weapons, reading the caption indicates what's shown is not from the amnesty, but guns actually taken from criminals. So the photo is a little misleading.

Here's the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/world/australia/gun-amnesty-firearms-surrender.html?module=WatchingPortal&region=c-column-middle-span-region&pgType=Homepage&action=click&mediaId=thumb_square&state=standard&contentPlacement=2&version=internal&contentCollection=www.nytimes.com&contentId=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/world/australia/gun-amnesty-firearms-surrender.html&eventName=Watching-article-click&_r=0
 
Last edited:
Who would have thought?

P.S.
...but guns actually taken from criminals.
More like some out of luck military weapons collector, who refused to give them the first time. I would like to see how an armed robbery will be made with a tripod mounted Bren machine gun, or that Browning .50 cal just behind him...
 
I thought that you were allowed some guns, double barreled shotguns and rifles for example, without restrictions in Australia?
 
Because Australia thought THIS gun turn in program would be the one where all those criminals turned in those violent weapons? Sure that will work.

In any case it sure would be nice of Australia to put all those guns in a few shipping containers on a boat headed toward the US. But I can dream.
 
The scary thing is this:

the most important changes over the last 20 years may have been in the public’s attitude toward gun safety. For example, Professor Alpers said, Australians are now more likely to believe that the person most at risk from a firearm in the home is a member of their own family, either from suicide or accidents.

“Try telling gun owners that 15 years ago — they largely laughed at you,” he said. “Now they’re starting to take it far more seriously.”

We can't let this happen in America (even though its already started).
 
I thought that you were allowed some guns, double barreled shotguns and rifles for example, without restrictions in Australia?
Only with a "genuine reason", and you need to be licensed and everything must be registered. Hunting or target shooting are the only valid reasons. If you want to get a license on the grounds of hunting or feral animal control you have to produce a letter from a landowner showing you have permission to shoot on private property, or be a primary producer yourself. Just wanting to hunt won't get you a license if you don't have somewhere to hunt.

Stating "for self defense" basically ensures you will never own a gun.

There's several classes of licenses - Category A for longarms is the easiest - just join a club. You do have to prove attendance though. Class A longarms include air rifles (yes, air rifles), rimfire and shotguns. If you want a Daisy BB gun - you need this license. There was recently a move to restrict lever action shotguns. No semiautos at all. Category B is centerfire rifles (again, no semis), and that's a bit more stringent. Category C is farmers only - 10 shot semi auto 22s, or 5 shot semi auto shotguns (basically a Ruger 10/22 or a Browning A5 which were popular at the time). Not a farmer with acreage? Forget it. Category D is the class for semi auto rifles - you HAVE to be a professional earning a living from shooting, e.g. a hired feral animal control, and that's at the state police commissioner's pleasure. Can take a year to get approved (which is a bit ridiculous if you're supposed to be demonstrating you are a professional shooter).

Handguns are an entirely different story.

I reckon you're a social pariah to over 95% of city dwellers if you mention you have an interest in firearms.
 
Mizar wrote:
I would like to see how an armed robbery will be made with a tripod mounted Bren machine gun, or that Browning .50 cal just behind him...

Well, if it were me, I would mount it in the back of a panel van. That way you can carry the gun and enough ammunition to service it without getting too tired to commit the crime. It's been done in "real life" before; pull up in front of a Brinks truck with a accomplice in another truck beside the Brinks truck to box him in; slow down and open the doors to the van. Anyone familiar with an M2 knows it would make short work of the Brinks truck (and its occupants).

But, I agree with you, a lot of the stuff probably came from the family of someone who didn't turn it in when they were supposed to have done so and were waiting for a time to turn it in without getting into trouble.
 
Ryanxia wrote:
We can't let this happen in America (even though its already started).

Well, as far as the danger posed to other family members by a gun in the house, that's as much a reality here as it is in Australia (or anywhere else in the world that allows private gun ownership). Shooting family members by accident happens. The difference in reactions to it is that we value the right to be armed highly enough that we're willing to accept the resulting domestic body count. The fact another society does not reach the same conclusion does not make them wrong.
 
herr walther wrote:
In any case it sure would be nice of Australia to put all those guns in a few shipping containers on a boat headed toward the US.

Why would you want that?

It's not like we don't already have a flood of imported guns coming in.
 
"Mostly rubbish guns" are the type that usually get turned in because they're pretty much worn out junk. That's what gets turned in when cities used to have those "gun buy back" events where the politicians brag about getting guns off the streets. 98% of the guns that got turned in were junk that had no street value. Back in the mid 1990's I worked at a hazardous waste incinerator that a few times a year did a special burn for various local police agencies. The cops wind up with those buy back guns and have to hold on to them for a certain time period, (don't recall how long) and eventually they must dispose of them by having them destroyed. I never got to see them on the way into the kiln where they were pretty much melted or seriously deformed because they were sealed up in containers and the police watched those containers every inch of the way so we never got to peek at what was inside until the remains came out the other end. Got to talk with a lot of cops about those guns, though, and sometimes lamented the fact that we might be destroying some guns that may be rare, unique, valuable, etc. Every cop always said that they were all gun buy back stuff and the only time they got turned in was when they were useless or almost useless. In other words; who's gonna take a well functioning gun and sell it for 50 bucks or so when it's worth 2 or 3 (or more) times that much on the street. Even with amnesty I can't see criminals voluntarily turning in guns that are in good working order because even if they have no use for them anymore they can still get good money for them from other criminals. I predict that the Australian authorities will see no difference in the crime rate because criminals don't turn in guns.
 
"Mostly rubbish guns" are the type that usually get turned in because they're pretty much worn out junk. That's what gets turned in when cities used to have those "gun buy back" events where the politicians brag about getting guns off the streets. 98% of the guns that got turned in were junk that had no street value. Back in the mid 1990's I worked at a hazardous waste incinerator that a few times a year did a special burn for various local police agencies. The cops wind up with those buy back guns and have to hold on to them for a certain time period, (don't recall how long) and eventually they must dispose of them by having them destroyed. I never got to see them on the way into the kiln where they were pretty much melted or seriously deformed because they were sealed up in containers and the police watched those containers every inch of the way so we never got to peek at what was inside until the remains came out the other end. Got to talk with a lot of cops about those guns, though, and sometimes lamented the fact that we might be destroying some guns that may be rare, unique, valuable, etc. Every cop always said that they were all gun buy back stuff and the only time they got turned in was when they were useless or almost useless. In other words; who's gonna take a well functioning gun and sell it for 50 bucks or so when it's worth 2 or 3 (or more) times that much on the street. Even with amnesty I can't see criminals voluntarily turning in guns that are in good working order because even if they have no use for them anymore they can still get good money for them from other criminals. I predict that the Australian authorities will see no difference in the crime rate because criminals don't turn in guns.

So you're saying that gun buy backs don't work? Whaaaaaaat?
 
Just for additional info:
I read that people can "amnesty" a gun to have it sold by a legal dealer, or if they already have the appropriate license they can "amnesty" a gun to make it legal in their name. I will have to find the article I read that in.
 
Anyone familiar with an M2 knows it would make short work of the Brinks truck (and its occupants).
Older trucks, yes, newer rigs from some companies, not so much - most "glass", (some are layered glass, some are polycarbonate, some are composite), in high quality modern armored cash transport trucks is rated to stop 50 BMG non-SLAP, or they were when I was in the business, according to what I got from our manufacturer. Would I want to test the theory by being behind it? Heck no! At least one trucking company I knew well actually had gone to composite armor, not just bare steel, which raised the rating of the entire vehicle with a weight reduction, which helped on fuel costs.
Now there was one outfit I worked for that gave me a rig where a good solid slap with a sledge hammer would have popped open the back doors - that truck was a 1968 armored body on a 1982 International frame, and was retired/scrapped about 25 years ago. :)
 
I find that when ever the government anywhere gets though stomping on it's populous there is always some bonehead on a microphone, begging for a slap on the back.
I would not be surprised if there were funds raised from selling these, obviously historic, pieces through a back channel to a museum.

When I was younger I used to think of Australia as the "Other USA", seems now they are just the "Other England".
 
I find that when ever the government anywhere gets though stomping on it's populous there is always some bonehead on a microphone, begging for a slap on the back.
I would not be surprised if there were funds raised from selling these, obviously historic, pieces through a back channel to a museum.

When I was younger I used to think of Australia as the "Other USA", seems now they are just the "Other England".


I always thought Australia and Australians would never buckle.

I was wrong again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top