Aussie Amnesty Nets 57,000 Guns & A Rocket Launcher

Jun 2014
60,492
34,753
Cleveland, Ohio
#1


CANBERRA, Australia — More than 57,000 illegal firearms including a rocket launcher and machine guns were handed in during a recent Australian amnesty in which gun owners could surrender such weapons without penalty.

The government and some gun policy analysts were surprised by the large number of weapons that were surrendered in the first nationwide amnesty since 1996, when a lone gunman killed 35 people in Tasmania state and galvanized popular support for tough national gun controls.

A virtual ban on private ownership of semi-automatic rifles and a government-funded gun buyback cut the size of Australia’s civilian arsenal by almost a third.

The government said Thursday the three-month amnesty that ended in September collected 57, 324 firearms, including almost 2,500 semi-automatic and fully-automatic guns — the rapid-fire categories particularly targeted after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

“It was a very, very good result,” Law Enforcement Minister Angus Taylor told The Associated Press.

*Snip*

Before the amnesty, Sydney University gun policy analyst Philip Alpers predicted it would only collect “rubbish guns” that were not valued by legitimate gun owners or criminals.

“It’s a resounding success. I think it exceeded everybody’s expectations. I was astonished,” Alpers said on Thursday.

Key to the success over several state-based amnesties that have occurred since the 1996 massacre was that licensed gun dealers had agreed to act as collection points. In previous amnesties, the guns have had to be surrendered at police stations.

The amnesty report said a rocket launcher had been handed into a gun dealer rather than police. The dealer said he understood it had been found in a local garbage dump in Queensland state.

Alpers said the surrender now of semi-automatic and automatic weapons that had been hidden in 1996 when they were banned suggested Australia’s mindset on guns was shifting and that controls had gained popularity over two decades.

Most illegal guns in Australia are considered to be in the gray market, meaning they were not registered or surrendered as they should have been, but are not considered black market guns owned for the purpose of crime.

The danger of those markets merging became obvious in 2014 when a man who professed support for the Islamic State group took hostages in a Sydney cafe armed with a gray market shotgun.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/australian-amnesty-nets-57000-firearms-and-rocket-launcher/2018/02/28/8e98d0d8-1cfb-11e8-98f5-ceecfa8741b6_story.html?utm_term=.719e5c3aa64f

Humans! Puzzling, ain't they?

BTW, Australia has 24 million people, or about 7% of the population of the US. A proportionate success in gun surrenders here would net 780,000 guns (if my math is correct), or about 2.5% of all guns believed to be owned by Americans (if my math is correct).

But MORE importantly, the Australian experience demonstrates that it is possible to remove SOME machine guns, etc. from the public in this way.

Your thoughts?
 
Likes: 3 people
Dec 2013
3,350
2,274
Switzerland
#2
The real question is not so much the guns but to restrict the access to ammunitions in different ways, people being authorized to buy them for legitimate purpose only according to regulations (hunting, sport, selfdefense) and in quantities adjusted to these purposes. Practically it would mean to be registered to purchase ammunitions and to declare what guns you have. With time gun owners will have to follow this channel to get their rounds and simultaneously they will shoot what they already have or old ammunitions will become obsolete and not usable. It is a process on the long run, but with such a huge number of guns in circulation, it is easier to limit the ammunitions than the guns.
 
Likes: 1 person
Jun 2014
60,492
34,753
Cleveland, Ohio
#3
The real question is not so much the guns but to restrict the access to ammunitions in different ways, people being authorized to buy them for legitimate purpose only according to regulations (hunting, sport, selfdefense) and in quantities adjusted to these purposes. Practically it would mean to be registered to purchase ammunitions and to declare what guns you have. With time gun owners will have to follow this channel to get their rounds and simultaneously they will shoot what they already have or old ammunitions will become obsolete and not usable. It is a process on the long run, but with such a huge number of guns in circulation, it is easier to limit the ammunitions than the guns.
How, though? Telling ammo manufacturers that they must reduce sales and eliminate some calibers altogether?

There would be SEVERE legal problems with this. An AK-47 fires a bullet described as a "7.62 x 39mm". If 20 companies manufacture that product for sale in the U.S., how would we tell any of them what their market share can be? Do we apportion a larger share to U.S. companies? What if one of these companies closes; which of the remaining 19 gets their share?

And probably most importantly: what is the rate of reduction in sales we force them to accept? How rapidly are sales to be reduced? How far? All the way to zero sales?

I don't say it can't be a viable approach, sir. But it is not clear to me why you think this is easier than banning sales of the AK-47 to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2014
13,678
11,286
NWOHQ
#4
I think a contributing factor would be that many of those who refused to hand them in '97 have passed away and their heirs hand them in. I knew a couple of collectors that claimed they just wrapped their weapons in oiled rags and buried them in sealed plastic pipes. However, they may have been full of shit. I didn't consider my small collection worth arguing about so I sold them to the government. It was only a handful of bolt action military rifles from late 19th to early 20th cent. and some needed repairs. Hell, I couldn't even get ammo for one from the Zulu Wars (Martini-Henry).
 
Likes: 1 person
Jun 2014
60,492
34,753
Cleveland, Ohio
#5
I think a contributing factor would be that many of those who refused to hand them in '97 have passed away and their heirs hand them in. I knew a couple of collectors that claimed they just wrapped their weapons in oiled rags and buried them in sealed plastic pipes. However, they may have been full of shit. I didn't consider my small collection worth arguing about so I sold them to the government. It was only a handful of bolt action military rifles from late 19th to early 20th cent. and some needed repairs. Hell, I couldn't even get ammo for one from the Zulu Wars (Martini-Henry).
All understandable human reactions to this change in Australian law, but the thing is, it worked. There hasn't been another massacre since 1997 there, using an assault weapon.



 
Dec 2014
13,678
11,286
NWOHQ
#6
All understandable human reactions to this change in Australian law, but the thing is, it worked. There hasn't been another massacre since 1997 there, using an assault weapon.
So true, excuse my rambling above. It wasn't meant to justify evasion of the law in any way and the simple fact of the matter is, we got it right.

E.T.A. I'd like to add that another figure is often ignored, and that is the number of weapons removed in Police raids on drug dealers and crime figures. Over a twenty year period since the introduction of this policy, the Police have gathered a considerable amount of unregistered weapons during normal operations.
 
Last edited:
Likes: 1 person
Apr 2015
13,965
2,472
Katmandu
#7
All understandable human reactions to this change in Australian law, but the thing is, it worked. There hasn't been another massacre since 1997 there, using an assault weapon.



We saw an even larger drop in firearm murders in America over the same period and at the same time gun laws were loosened and the number of guns and the number of people carrying guns exploded.

Mass shootings is a new thing made up to slant the truth and leave the impression that shootings are increasing when they aren't.
 
Jun 2014
60,492
34,753
Cleveland, Ohio
#8
We saw an even larger drop in firearm murders in America over the same period and at the same time gun laws were loosened and the number of guns and the number of people carrying guns exploded.

Mass shootings is a new thing made up to slant the truth and leave the impression that shootings are increasing when they aren't.
Not really. Although yes, there is not a commonly-agreed definition of "mass murders", the U.S.assault weapons ban did reduce the number of those crimes, in a manner that is measurably different from the gun homicide rates for other deaths.





I agree we cannot say that the ban was the only cause of this decline in mass murders, but is certainly seems to have been. It works in other countries. It's WORTH TRYING because there is NO REASON NOT TO.

The 2nd amendment cannot reasonably be interpreted to guarantee Americans the right to carry military-grade weapons.
 
Likes: 2 people
Jul 2013
53,951
57,826
Nashville, TN
#9
We saw an even larger drop in firearm murders in America over the same period and at the same time gun laws were loosened and the number of guns and the number of people carrying guns exploded.

Mass shootings is a new thing made up to slant the truth and leave the impression that shootings are increasing when they aren't.
And Denial is just a river in Egypt for you people...
 
Likes: 1 person
Dec 2013
3,350
2,274
Switzerland
#10
How, though? Telling ammo manufacturers that they must reduce sales and eliminate some calibers altogether?

There would be SEVERE legal problems with this. An AK-47 fires a bullet described as a "7.62 x 39mm". If 20 companies manufacture that product for sale in the U.S., how would we tell any of them what their market share can be? Do we apportion a larger share to U.S. companies? What if one of these companies closes; which of the remaining 19 gets their share?

And probably most importantly: what is the rate of reduction in sales we force them to accept? How rapidly are sales to be reduced? How far? All the way to zero sales?

I don't say it can't be a viable approach, sir. But it is not clear to me why you think this is easier than banning sales of the AK-47 to begin with.
It works very well in Switzerland..... there is here somehow 1.5 millions military rifles, caliber 7.5mm, in the hand of private persons. Manufacturers would have to cope with it and the control would be at the level of the people selling ammunitions to the private buyers. Of course such a system will decrease the quantity of ammunitions sold, and therefore produced, but how manufacturers could complain ?If it is the law ??
 
Likes: 1 person

Similar Discussions