Skip Navigation

Gun owners feel victimised by new WA firearms laws, touted as 'toughest' in the country

www.abc.net.au Gun owners feel victimised by new WA firearms laws, touted as 'toughest' in the country

Farmers and recreational shooters say they've been labelled as "bad people" following recent changes to WA's firearms legislation, which will come into effect in March 2025.

Gun owners feel victimised by new WA firearms laws, touted as 'toughest' in the country

Gun owners need to understand that it isn't a right, its a privilege the rest of us allow only if conditions are met.

If something happens that alters the situation those conditions are set for, they need to respect changes that may come.

Setting themselves up as victims, like they have here, makes me question the participants mental capacity to evaluate their own behaviours, therefore their own risk to those around them.

Two people were killed by a gun owner in circumstances where his ease of access to guns greatly increased the severity of the consequences. Communities have a right to expect gun owners to seriously appreciate the risks of their firearm possession.

Also screw the Nationals for making this a political fight, especially a rural v metro fight. This is bigger than you're never seen dirt akubra hat and white pressed shirt with rolled up sleeves country cosplay.

27
27 comments
  • @Gorgritch_umie_killa Last I read the limit was going to be 10 guns per licence holder. I'm not a firearm owner but to my ignorant ass, that seems enough. Happy to be educated on why it isn't.

    • I think I read that it was ten and five for a hunting license. I'm with you on the other perspective thingy: This sounds entirely reasonable.

      I'd actually appreciate a simple explanation of the law, what is changing and why it's bad. I have found the legistlation but it's in some dialect. I don't really follow what is different.

    • I think thats right. No disagreement here.

      I had a friend that worked in the industry, a lot of what the industry people say about genuine need is a load of bull. Just like any other hobby they wanna get the latest whizz bang thing and show off their collections. Fine, but guns aren't just any hobby.

  • Setting themselves up as victims, like they have here, makes me question the participants mental capacity to evaluate their own behaviours, therefore their own risk to those around them.

    They didn't do anything wrong, someone else did.
    And now they are going to be impacted in some uncertain and arbitrary ways.
    They get to whine.

    Questioning their mental health says far more about your own ability to empathise than theirs.

    • If some idiot wraps his car around a tree and government decides to reduce the speed limit on that stretch of road, do you whine about how you've been unfairly targeted? "It wasn't me that had an accident!"

      • Some idiot ran some people over deliberately and now I have to get rid of my ute and buy a sedan.
        At my own expense.
        And this is going to stop another idiot how?

        Yeah, I'm going to whinge.

    • They didn't do anything wrong, someone else did.

      This is the problem, no one but them are saying they did. They're victimising themselves in this instance. There are feelings of loss being experienced by gun owners that they shouldn't be feeling. They did the right thing, some other bastard didn't, the laws have to be changed to cater for the idiots out there not the responsible people. Just like anything else in society the rest of us bear the cost.

      For example, myself and i'm sure a lot of other people would probably enjoy shooting, but due to the idiots out there you need to take the hobby really seriously, and be really committed, therefore its too much for me and a lot of others. Its a small cost (of course) that I have to bear because people are idiots and the severity of possible consequence with guns is so high.

      Questioning their mental health says far more about your own ability to empathise than theirs.

      Refer to above, for my empathy, but the point is, no one should need to empathise. No one should be blaming responsible gun owners, but the cost of the hobby is directly impacted by its dangerous nature and possible misuses.

      • I wasn't going to respond, but I have a few spare minutes.

        My response isn't even really to you, it's just more of an observation on my part based on the sorts of messages I see in places like this about how "you can't compare guns to other inanimate object" or "gun buybacks" or "meat is murder" or "shooters are psychotic" or whatever.

        Let me start by saying, I'm going to obey any and all laws.
        99.9% of gun owners will when it comes down to it, and the .1 were going to break any laws we make that gets in their way anyway.

        Most of the community don't think of guns at all, they're a fictional thing of movies and tv and games, unless they see a cop on the street.
        But there seems to be a small subset of people who think that gun owners just need to "get it" and stop.
        That if "it" is explained to us properly, we'll just hand our guns back and pick a "better" hobby.
        That fundamentally misunderstands humans.
        I drink alcohol.
        I ride a motorcycle.
        I eat sugary and fatty foods, especially meat (what kind of hunter would I be if I didn't?).
        I do lots of stuff that is objectively risky to myself and/or others, yet are legal and I enjoy them.

        Trying to convince a gun owner that they should just give up their hobby isn't a matter of offsetting the loss with a buyback or convincing us that killing animals is bad, or that the community would be safer without our dangerous weapons or whatever.
        We already have something that we like, and will do it for as long as we are allowed.
        Stopping me involves changing the laws out from under me, and I'm going to advocate for the status quo as hard as any anti argues for the change.

        It's not pretending to be a victim when someone threatens to change those laws under me.
        Anti's just think it's ok for me to take the hit, in what they see as my and the communities best interest.

        So I guess I'll vote my way, and they'll vote theirs.

        To be clear, not an attack on you /u/Gorgritch_umie_killa, I'm just wasting a few moments offering some mental context for why I say "no".

  • Gun owners need to understand that it isn't a right, its a privilege

    I was pretty upset, thinking that I was reading about Washington State, since it is explicitly a right, as defined in the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution. We have some really tough gun laws in Washington State too, so although I was upset, I wasn't really surprised. Anyways, I was glad to see the context was Western Australia, although I do feel for you guys who don't like it. For those of you that do like it, congratulations, you got your wishes.

  • @Gorgritch_umie_killa
    I was nursing on duty at Fremantle Hospital when bikers arrived and discharged an injured gang member at gunpoint in 1993. Even with the strictest controls, guns get stolen or sold to bad people. The fewer weapons, the better in my opinion.

27 comments