Oh, right, I see. I’ve never heard that used before. Thanks.

That…doesn’t make it clearer.

Ex-lax?

The service was shut down on June 26, 2024

One spammer. Not sure their motivations. Plus one from someone who is either the operator of the spam bot, or just randomly caught up in this by accident.

Holy shit, I didn’t realise Juice Media went back that far! I think I first discovered them about 5 years ago, and it seemed like it was pretty new at the time. I had no idea until your comment that 10 years ago they had a series old enough to wrap up gracefully.

You’ll need to let the mods or admins know your concern there. It’s got nothing to do with me.

No, you can’t, unfortunately.

As many people were killed by traffic murders on the day of the Boncli shootings as by gun.

Fuck that’s a good stat to have. Do you have a good source I can use to point to it?

Not seen any of the polling, the comments under politicians’ Facebook posts about it, or heard interviews on the ABC? It most definitely is a very popular policy. Unfortunately, that’s mostly because of a lack of understanding of the nuance. They just see “social media = bad for kids, therefore this bill that says it’s going to stop that must be good”.

That’s pretty interesting. Personally I prefer being able to edit at any time, door example if that reply is pointing out an error, you can then fix the error. Keeping a visible change log of edits is also great, to provide transparency. A forum I still frequent has that.

and to maintain

Absolutely untrue. Rail is insanely cheap to maintain, compared to roads. Especially roads taking heavy freight. The amount of damage a car does to the road increases by the 4th power of its weight. Meaning Carey twice the weight, do 16 time the damage to the road.

Plus, they can take much, much higher volumes of cargo. One train can carry as much as 4 road trains and not even be an especially noteworthy freight train. So operation costs are lower.

And they’re safer, since rails are not shared with cars and are a more controlled route.

Yes, upfront costs are higher, but after that it’s literally all wins.

It didn’t take them years to figure it out. It took them years of collecting the evidence proving that it’s a good idea. Then 11 days of listening to reactionary morons telling them not to do it was all it took to kill it.

The first comment I see when I look at the comments on the article is particularly upsetting:

Meanwhile truck crashes kill an average of one person each week in NSW and seriously injure 5 others. What is most iniquitous about this situation is that the majority of those killed and injured in truck crashes are other road users. For example, of the people killed in fatal truck crashes in 2021, approximately 50 per cent were occupants in a light vehicle, 25 per cent were occupants in the heavy truck and 25 per cent were other road users (pedestrians, motorcyclists or pedal cyclists). Many would regard this situation as unethical. Others would say that such disregard for human suffering is a mortal sin given that a far safer alternative – the railways – already exists but has been largely abandoned in favor of heavily subsidized road freight.

Australian data shows that a high proportion of heavy vehicles exceed speed limits on both open and urban roads. It is estimated that if all heavy vehicles complied with speed limits, there would be a 29% reduction in truck crashes. Australian Design Rule (ADR) 65 — Maximum Road Speed Limiting for Heavy Goods Vehicles and Heavy Omnibuses - specifies the devices or systems used to limit the maximum road speed of heavy vehicles. Unfortunately, there is evidence that speed limiters are frequently disabled. Speed controllers, much more effective at controlling truck speeds, are readily available devices that prevent trucks from exceeding a maximum speed under all road conditions, downhill included.

The problem is not just the roads.

Why we use trucks for freight as much we do is beyond me. Any route that sees more than 2 road trains per day should be served by rail. And maybe we could improve our passenger rail while we’re at it.

I’ll be honest, I’m more interested in speed limits and road design within cities than I am in rural areas. But this is still a major loss for evidence-based policy. We’re not talking lowering the speed limit on major highways, just on minor, often poorly maintained, rural roads.

Bug-a-salt

Oh that’s what it’s called! A mate of mine got one of those this year and it is really cool.

If you know someone who does some sort of hobby that requires consumables, find out what that consumable is and buy them some of that. Paint for a painter, wool for a knitter, etc. But only if you can find out the specific type of it they prefer/need. The wrong colour or type of paint is very unlikely to be appreciated, but something that’s a little more expensive than they’d normally buy themselves, but still within the style they’d like is great, if you know what that is. A voucher to a store that’s specific to their hobby is a good compromise if you don’t know and aren’t able to find out more specifics.

Loosely related, running shirts or cycling jerseys are good for people who run or ride. Not quite consumables, but things they probably own and/or need to own a few of, that can help express themselves within the hobby and probably don’t need to be in a really specific style. The fact that they’re likely to own multiple of them makes them more appropriate as a gift, IMO, because it’s less of a “commitment”. Whereas a running watch is probably something they only need one of, so even if it was priced in the appropriate range it wouldn’t work—they’ve already got the one and only one they need.

The gun number argument feels like an ineffective bandaid though

Think of it less as a bandaid, and more as one small tool in a long list of tools used to prevent things like this.

And whoops. I actually started my last comment to make one main point, but added in a bunch of other points along with it. And then forgot to get to the main reason I started replying. So here it is:

I would feel bad if I inherited my great great grandfather’s still functional shotgun and had to destroy a 120 year old antique

Present laws treat antiques very differently from more modern guns with more utilitarian purpose. Future laws should continue to do this, IMO.

Along with moving away from a class-based system into a case-by-case system, perhaps rather than a specific number of guns, the law should include, as one of the factors in the case-by-case assessment, why the person needs an additional gun. If it’s filling a niche that the person very clearly cannot fill with their current guns (and which the person has a demonstrated need to fill), then allow it. Multiple of the same or similar type of weapon is less likely to be a valid reason than owning a rifle for pigs, an antique collectible, and a clay pigeon shotgun.

Treating immigrants as second-class is gross and deeply unaustralian.

It’s common sense that to use a gun within Australia someone should be a citizen of Australia

No it’s not. It’s common sense that a permanent resident should have all the same rights an Australian citizen does, apart from those specifically related to the functioning of our government (e.g. voting).

edit: and heck, I even think they should have the right to vote in Council elections.