It will be an offence to use a carriage service to access material on the manufacture or modification of guns and accessories, as well as other explosives or lethal devices.
This has such broad potential for misapplication, but apparently everyone throws critical thinking out the window because guns are scary…
I think the gun number limit is also a kneejerk reaction playing more on people’s fears rather than actually being logical, but at least it’s affecting less people than the above.
Please explain how limiting how many guns people can have isn’t sensible.
Honestly, why do we allow “recreation” as a legitimate reason at all? Like, sorry, but when a hobby endangers the community, then it shouldn’t be allowed. People will mental gymnastic a reason why it’s unfair to stop them enjoying their hobby, but I remain rather unconvinced.
I’m not across the new laws, but the limiting the number of guns someone can legally own part just doesn’t scream knee-jerk to me.
It’s a feeling based idea to assuage the public rather than a logic based one. If someone has four guns already there is little difference between what damage they are likely to be able to cause with those four vs what they could do with five, six, or seven (and the difference is less significant again if they already have ten). The limits seem rather arbitrary instead of evidence based and would not stop a repetition of the Bondi massacre, they appear instead to just be a quick decision made to show the government is doing something in reaction to a tragedy (something must be done, this is something therefore we must do it…).
I would say it’s pretty typical of all Aus communication and intelligence legislation from the last 20 years. Put total overreach into the legislation then apply it selectively, because scary terrorists or scary guns or fucking bunyips, idk.
I have seen a lot of wives and mates getting gun licences recently. Pretty easy way to overcome the rather pointless quantity limitations. In some ways I worry the number limits may actually increase the spread of firearms in the country.
You looking up info about poisonous plants? Clearly a murderer! Read true crime describing how someone stalked someone? Obviously you’re about to do it.
Thought crime wooh all aboard the fucking thought crime train. Intent? Harm? No you thought bad thoughts and gained black and fell knowledge. To the torture cells with you!
It’s a way of saying a method of transmitting information. Replace ‘a carriage service’ with ‘the internet’ and you’d cover much (albeit not all) of the intention there.
Probably, I did find a copy of that as a kid but it’s been long enough that I can’t recall specifics.
That is something that could fall under the new rule though, as could watching youtube videos of people modding guns, or gun owners downloading a maintenance manual for the guns they own, or if particularly misapplied even things like getting an ebook that happens to mention an aside about weapons/explosive manufacture (pretty sure Jules Verne describes a way to make explosives in The Mysterious Island for example).
Carriage service is pretty standard these days. Apparently it came about when people would transfer small amounts of money into other people’s accounts with threatening messages attached to the transfer
This has such broad potential for misapplication, but apparently everyone throws critical thinking out the window because guns are scary…
I think the gun number limit is also a kneejerk reaction playing more on people’s fears rather than actually being logical, but at least it’s affecting less people than the above.
Please explain how limiting how many guns people can have isn’t sensible.
Honestly, why do we allow “recreation” as a legitimate reason at all? Like, sorry, but when a hobby endangers the community, then it shouldn’t be allowed. People will mental gymnastic a reason why it’s unfair to stop them enjoying their hobby, but I remain rather unconvinced.
I’m not across the new laws, but the limiting the number of guns someone can legally own part just doesn’t scream knee-jerk to me.
It’s a feeling based idea to assuage the public rather than a logic based one. If someone has four guns already there is little difference between what damage they are likely to be able to cause with those four vs what they could do with five, six, or seven (and the difference is less significant again if they already have ten). The limits seem rather arbitrary instead of evidence based and would not stop a repetition of the Bondi massacre, they appear instead to just be a quick decision made to show the government is doing something in reaction to a tragedy (something must be done, this is something therefore we must do it…).
I would say it’s pretty typical of all Aus communication and intelligence legislation from the last 20 years. Put total overreach into the legislation then apply it selectively, because scary terrorists or scary guns or fucking bunyips, idk.
I have seen a lot of wives and mates getting gun licences recently. Pretty easy way to overcome the rather pointless quantity limitations. In some ways I worry the number limits may actually increase the spread of firearms in the country.
Thought crime is so awesome.
You looking up info about poisonous plants? Clearly a murderer! Read true crime describing how someone stalked someone? Obviously you’re about to do it.
Thought crime wooh all aboard the fucking thought crime train. Intent? Harm? No you thought bad thoughts and gained black and fell knowledge. To the torture cells with you!
Is “carriage service” a weird legal way of saying bus?
It’s a way of saying a method of transmitting information. Replace ‘a carriage service’ with ‘the internet’ and you’d cover much (albeit not all) of the intention there.
Oh I see. Doesn’t the anarchist cookbook txt that’s been going around for decades tell you how to make dum-dum rounds?
Probably, I did find a copy of that as a kid but it’s been long enough that I can’t recall specifics.
That is something that could fall under the new rule though, as could watching youtube videos of people modding guns, or gun owners downloading a maintenance manual for the guns they own, or if particularly misapplied even things like getting an ebook that happens to mention an aside about weapons/explosive manufacture (pretty sure Jules Verne describes a way to make explosives in The Mysterious Island for example).
Carriage service is pretty standard these days. Apparently it came about when people would transfer small amounts of money into other people’s accounts with threatening messages attached to the transfer
No.
Tbh i think it’s one of those laws they can throw to get you on something when they have nothing else.
The whole law is one knee-jerk shitheap, brought on by a media and population demanding the government do ‘something’
There’s precisely one thing in this law that might have actually prevented the massacre and it’s the more rigourous background checks.