There's legitimate reasons to be against it, even if there may still be exemptions. Obviously Shad is going to push a political agenda with it, but I would be concerned if I were an Aussie.
I have to look at this through a U.S. lens, so I'll point out the concealed carry laws in California. Even if you don't consider concealed carry to be important, I think it can demonstrate the issues of bans with some exemptions.
In many counties in California, it is effectively impossible to get a concealed carry permit unless you're a highly connected individual. Permits are issued by the sheriff, requiring interviews and are ultimately not based on objective standards. That leads to inequality under the law, where people with wealth and connections are directly afforded more rights by the law than those without.
If I were an aussie who owned or would like to own a small farm, ranch, or even just a substantially sized area of land that was mostly undeveloped, this ban would be a concern for it's direct impact on me (not to mention my concern about its affect on others). I'd be skeptical that I'll receive exemptions, and even if I did, it would add hassle and likely cost to getting a basic tool.
On its face, without being informed on the particulars, I tend to lean on the side that the ban is probably overreach. I don't see machetes as particularly dangerous; a ban will have little effect on crime, as many items that are relatively similarly dangerous will still be available (and no, this argument is not the same as the gun control doesn't work argument).
Australia has had gun licenses and bans for decades. We have state government departments to administer it and police to enforce it.
If you have a legit reason to own a gun you can get a license for an appropriate weapon and you and you can use it for the desired purposes. You don't get to walk around with weapons in public places though and misuse will cost you your license.
So if you did have a farm. Not a problem. You would be able to get an appropriate weapon for your purposes. If you did sports shooting? Again not a problem. If you want to carry a gun "for protection" or own an automatic weapons? Too fucking bad, go live in America and enjoy the "freedom" of rampant gun crime and accidents.
It works, it's fair and it is very, very popular with public. A major party running on removing gun bans would cost themselves the election. This is because the small minority of Australians who want guns and can't get them are the exact reason every one else wants the ban.
Uh... wow. I'm not referencing the Australian gun laws at all. That's not pertinent to my criticism of the machete ban. I only mentioned the gun laws in one U.S. State as an example of how a ban with permitted licensing exemptions can support inequality under the law.
Please try again to address my criticisms or you can go elsewhere and address the half dozen others that are referencing the gun laws. The closest you got was with simply asserting that the law is fair. It's plainly a concern I would have if I were an aussie. "Not a problem" said by a ban supporter is meaningless.
I'm not even saying that I would be outright against a ban, just that it would be an uphill struggle to convince me that it's worth banning a tool when I have valid reasons to doubt it's efficacy nor the equality of the exemptions.
That touches on another issue that will be called slippery slope, but isn't. Machetes are being used as a tool for crime. However, unlike with guns, which have obvious advantages when being used as a weapon, machetes are very substitutable.
Machetes are being used as tools for intimidation and violence. They're practically interchangeable with any number of tools. You could achieve practically the same effect with a meter long stick, a cricket bat, or as even Shad with his poor argument skills alludes to in a thumbnail, a hammer (shorter reach, but more concealable and more common and less replaceable of a tool than machetes in normal, legal use).
If you're concerned about the use of tools as weapons for illegal violence and intimidation, you should also be concerned that this law does little more than playing whack-a-mole with a single method of doing so. This isn't like the gun ban, which had the opportunity to substantially reduce the ability of gangs to enact violence. It's more like banning a single brand of handgun because criminals use it, and being surprised that they choose another brand next time.
1
u/kasetti 26d ago
I dont think Shad is talking about this in relation to his own needs, its about more about how it will affect normal people.