Remember a government which admits it has committed genocide believes it is important to disarm you because they always have your personal best interests at heart and wouldn’t ever do anything to compromise that… again
Again, it's got nothing to do with personal safety. Unless you're a politician.
one would need to show a link between licensed firearm owners and crime.
To clarify- that's a pretty inaccurate and inflammatory headline. What has actually happened
Which do you think are sensible?
Those related to police actioning intelligence wrt license denial/ removals, taking away the ability of a bleeding heart tribunal to overrule on police decisions.
That sounds reasonable.
It made me curious as to their classification regime and how that change would reflect from the status quo
That's what I thought too, already fairly restricted.
I know you don't like my approach to this- but in my opinion the firearm (particularly that Stoeger) used set up the Australian gun lobby with a pretty easy play to mitigate the reactionary gun control responses.
I get it. When it comes to gun control people in general lacking practical experience get lured into a false sence of security and safety with magic numbers like only 5 rounds for a rifle or only 10 rounds for a pistol etc.
They have an accepted regime, said regime has internally consistent logic, and has been in effect for almost 30 years with a general weakening (not tightening) since 97. If an event like Bondi only leads to closing loopholes and maintaining the same internally consistent logic - that's a line held.
You call it a fallacy, yet it is not. It is only a fallacy when you over exaggerate the end result, which based off the evidence provided we are not. In Canada we are on the slippery slope argument, which can be proven through the continued and repeated attacks against legal firearms ownership.
That is a gross misunderstanding of the concept of the slippery slope. The proposed end result is one aspect, but the other- arguably more important one- is the unsupported linkages between Step 1, Step 2, Step 3 ... Step N to get to the (possibly) exaggerated end result
Third option- accept that the risk<->utility curve exists in public perception, don't commit the fallacy of composition, and re-examine said good summary from the lens of "society doesn't consider all firearms equal." Specifically- plot a mental trendline of regulation as it pertains to the blanket "firearms" (the one that leads to your conclusion) then plot the same trendline of regulations as they pertain only to "fudd" guns. That 2nd line is essentially flat outside of ~16 year period with the now defunct long gun registry. Decades of minor oscillation around local permitting and registration, 2 incremental licensing steps in the introduction of the FAC then conversion to PAL. In terms of technical restriction only some niche stuff around length. But no- not a little bit being given up every few years.
Relaxation since 1997 is primarily at the territory rather than the National level - removing cooling off periods, allowing suppressors, lowering age limits etc.
It would. Even seemingly minor reclassifications contribute to a gradual tightening.
