Fionn wrote:womble wrote:There’s no rational argument for it.
The implication is that a licensed law abiding citizen who currently owns 5 firearms will become a danger to society when he obtains a 6th is absurd.
It dose’nt even justify a response or counter argument because of it’s absurdity.
There’s no evidence to support it It’s just arbitrary baseless legislation for the sake flexing power over people.
A government bending democracy toward tyranny just because they can. No other reason. There’s no basis is in any of this recent legislation for the greater good.
How does banning rare and obscure calibers instead of commonly accessible ones have any effect in making the community safer.
It dose’nt. There’s no reality in that.
This government is simply exploiting fears and anxieties of their own creation. But they’re not real.
Respectfully Fionn, perhaps you can put forward your reasoning for your support.
I don't support it, but they is very little argument against it as the evidence to support it is pretty simple, its a reasonable and rational decision, given the laws and how firearm ownership works in Western Australia.
A lot of people don't seem to understand how firearm ownership operates in Australia, they seem to incorrectly believe its similar to America, its not, its a very different.
Australian system operates on a permissioning basis, where the government grants individuals permission to own firearms. Consequently, the government has the authority to establish rules and regulations to ensure public safety. The intention behind these regulations is to strike a balance between allowing responsible individuals to engage in legitimate recreational activities such as hunting while minimizing the risks associated with firearm misuse.
A 5 firearm limit for sole reason to use for hunting is reasonable and most people would agree, or more likely still think its too many for purpose of hunting.
Given you can only hunt on properties that have given you permission and in that permission, they have listed the calibers and vermin that can be hunted at the property a 5 firearm limit seems reasonable.
Also given that fact that many? people in WA seem to have used property letters for properties they have never hunted on (or been allowed to), their is a very good case that these people should have their firearms seized and licences cancelled as they haven't demonstrated the reason to own the firearms.
You’re right. Annoyingly. Is what it is. Sucks to be us.
But striking the balance I’m not confident that they really are.
Striking the balance would be Andrews in vic. You get half a duck season to hunt and cook up some yummy ducks.The greens get the other half to walk around cradling their dead ducks. That’s fair right.
I just don’t see the justification for WA to implement such significant changes. And the only justification they bother to put forward is targeting organised crime. Which is insulting.
I don’t see the public outrage crying out for tougher gun laws there. I only see the government and the media manufacturing hysteria. I see a police minister on the news associating state licenced individuals with criminals.
I see their end goal become ever more apparent and complete disregard for liberalism. And though we don’t have rights , that is our foundation.
I don’t see a balance. I see bias.
I do take some consolation in the Spanish mackerel winning their fight it the courts. I suppose that gives me some hope.
But today we bow before our royal majesty state premier in his magnificent glory.
I dream of a world where chickens can cross the road without having their motives questioned