world

Australia agrees to first national gun amnesty in 20 years

10 Comments
By ROD McGUIRK

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

10 Comments
Login to comment

Are you listening America? Watch and learn.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Well just wait and see as This Liberal National government did a deal with gun lobby and the shooters party to have numbers for governing with a trade off for support

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@ Aly Ruston You're kidding right ? I can tell you as an Aussie the only people that have automatic guns in Oz despite the laws are the criminals ie. the very people that you don't want to have any guns. So in essence all the gun laws did was to strip the automatic guns from the law abiding citizens that never used them for crime. open your eyes for fux sake ! This has and always was about control of the population. Governments are terrified of an armed population more than any external threat as it is a direct threat to them and their corrupt ways. That's the real reason the Yanks have the right to bear arms . I salute them for that !!!!

-9 ( +5 / -14 )

I'm with Aly. Having millions of guns justified by a paranoia towards government is stupid.... and dangerous.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Governments are terrified of an armed population

Aren't most people are terrified of an armed population?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

@ozziedesigner

Governments are terrified of an armed population more than any external threat ... That's the real reason the Yanks have the right to bear arms

You do see the contradiction, right? God, I hope so. Anyway, more guns = more people killed by guns. It is a very simple equation but just something that seems beyond the comprehension of your average, 2nd amendment loving American.

Seriously, the Constitution was written over 200 years ago. Some of it may still be relevant, sure. But a lot of it is as outdated as your ideas seem to be.

Good on the Aussies, and like Aly Ruston said, that's the way you get rid of guns. You stop talking about it, and start doing it.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Common sense. I like common sense. I find it strange that some don't.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Australia leads the world when it comes to showing other countries how to get gun control right. After the Port Arthur massacre, they wasted no time in taking action and doing the right thing. Getting military style weapons off of city streets is a must, not just an ideal. Sure, the mafia and gangs didn't volunteer to give up their guns but it made getting them a lot harder. Numbers don't lie: 530 gun deaths in 1995 and 230 in 2014. They did something right. Not perfect but light years ahead of what the US has ever done. I commend Australia for giving it another go. I'm Canadian and I have guns for hunting. I don't need to pump 200 rounds per minute into a deer. The sheer idea of saying citizens need weapons to fight their own government when it goes rogue is ludicrous. Why not work harder to elect governments that you can trust? The bravado and machismo of the "guns-for-liberty" idea is pathetic.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Aly Rustom,

Are you listening America? Watch and learn.

From this American's perspective, I don't see many learning opportunities in watching Australia, that's not to say there aren't any, just not that many. One very important thing that many Americans could possibly take away from this, is a better awareness and understanding of the fundamental differences between the United States and Australia.

In 1996 the Australian government enacted the National Firearm Agreement which established strict criteria for the acquiring and possession of all firearms. In the process ownership of certain classes of firearms was criminalized and said firearms were confiscated. The newly criminalized gun owners were compensated for their loss, as mandated by the Australian Constitution, but this program was mandatory. Opting out of the "buy back" would result in criminal action. Bottom line is that, a significant segment of the Australian population was coerced, with the threat of prosecution, into surrendering their private property in service of the government's political agenda.

It worked in Australia, but that kind of action has a snowballs chance in hell of working in the US. For many Americans this kind of thing is a glaring example of governmental overreach and is clear justification for the protection afforded by the 2nd. Amendment. In the wake of Sandy Hook, Connecticut and New York both passed strict laws requiring any owner of "assault type" weapons to register them with the respective state government and, in their many thousands, they refused to comply. Now what? Storm troopers kicking down doors? I don't think so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Aly Ruston You're kidding right ?

Nope. Dead serious. Pun intended.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites