Wait... Governments can act swiftly and decisively when an issue arises?
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2025
231 points (98.3% liked)
World News
51374 readers
2583 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean if they did the same in america, americans would just buy 10 more guns out of spite.
Judging by your username you know this from other experiences.
They’ve done this before and it was hugely successful.
Well, they only got 20% of the guns that time, and the vast majority of them were .22 "pea rifles" and shotguns. In fact only 204 automatic weapons were turned in (for a rate of 1 in 1,000). Also they had about 3.2 million registered firearms before the ban, which reduced to about 2.2 million, only to now be back around 3.2 million, but with a lower % of Aussies owning them.
Also violence was already on the downswing before the buyback, both firearm and non-firearm homicides generally lowered from around '79 on, though while firearm suicides decreased, non-firearm suicides increased.
Don't get me wrong I'm sure the bans effected the rates a little, but not much and they were already decreasing over a decade earlier. It seems that AUS is just not that murderous, and that those who would have shot themselves seem to have just found another way.
20% is hugely successful.
1/5th success.
Wow its like australia is a real country and not solely controlled by a cabal of oil companies, mining companies, arms manufacturers, car companies, finance corporations, and tech bros.
Just the mining companies, mostly.
How can youshare this?
I thought she had it removed from the whole internet how dare you not follow her rules
/s
Victoria already has some amnesty bins that could be repurposed.
The proletariat must not be disarmed
Another way of saying this is that all the dead children are worth it so I can fantasize about violently overthrowing a State.
It's so disappointing to see fools on the left swallowing brain-dead NRA propaganda.
I guess Marx joined the NRA now?
Maybe the guy who thought a dictatorship would happily hand over power to the people was wrong two times?
Marx, like the US second amendment, wasn’t written in the contemporary context.
Marx wasn’t talking about cheap fast-firing weapons being used against a state armed with drones and helicopters, etc.
If you want to project Marx forward, “arms” should be redefined as something meaningful like speech and political power…not the literal ability to coerce your masters with rifles. If 10,000 Americans rose up in arms against the government, 10,000 Americans would be quickly put down with superior arms.
Anything to address the real underlying problem.
Both things need to happen: the underlying problem can be addressed, which is and has been being done with varying degrees of success - and they can also pick the low hanging fruit and make less deadly weapons available to potential criminals.
Yes. So the police can begin brutalizing Palestine supporters more fearlessly.
I used to be for gun control. With where the world is going, we all need bazookas soon.
Disarming all the people who "didn't" shoot up a beach won't bring those victims back, and it won't stop motivated extremists from doing it again. The kind of folks who commit atrocities like this just won't bother participating in the buyback.
I'm curious what kind of indicators might have been present that police or others in the community might have missed; violent rhetoric on social media, a sudden interest in guns by somebody who previously wasn't into them, etc.
We disarmed the UK after two shootings. And restricted certain fertilisers after bombings
Now they just use knives which are a lot less lethal
Bingo. But good luck pinning a gun nut down and having a conversation about the lethality of the weapon.
And vans
Terribly incorrect and it absolutely will.
The (realistic) goal isn’t to bring people back (why even say that?) or reduce crime to zero…it’s to reduce potential harm.
You don’t even need to look past this attack to see that gun control saved lives: had the shooters been armed with high-capacity high-volume weapons available in the USA, for example, they could have killed scores more people. If, in the next attack, shooters have access to less lethal weapons…less people will die.
It's a common mistake to assume that gun buybacks are being proposed as a solution. The solutions being proposed are a set of laws/policies to tighten gun controls, like who's allowed to buy guns, what guns are allowed to be owned and how many, improving checks and mitigating newer loopholes.
Tighter gun controls are shown to reduce mass shootings. In Australia, the laws have loosened a lot since the big wave of gun laws in 1996. The buyback program is a consequence of bringing people in line with the new laws.
The realistic goal is not to make it absolutely impossible for a motivated extremist with lots of resources to plan and commit a mass shooting, it's to make it much harder to prepare to do and to create more opportunities to notice their preparation.
Agree with all.
I’d go further: the goal of legislation like this isn’t to reduce gun crime at all, or deal with the intent to murder…that’s dealt with in different legislation.
The goal here is to reduce harm…it makes a huge difference what weapon a criminal has access to when they’re trying to kill people. Gun nuts can’t get their heads around or cope with the difference between a potential mass murderer having a knife and a fully automatic weapon. They’ll change the subject.
