Should Firearm/Weapons Deals Be Disallowed?

Ozbargain tries to be a family friendly community/site. I know there are many deals which sometimes cross the boundary. (e.g. alcohol)
But i think the wider community consensus (not ozbargain but australia) is that firearms should be restricted. I don't think ozbargain should be promoting firearms

I know smoking advertising is restricted so there are no cigarette deals but if ozbargain started having such deals I would probably leave and troll elsewhere. The gun deals do me make consider this?

Just wondering what the community feeling about these gun deals are?

IMO. Gun deals will eventually cause negative public attention for ozbargain. So if I was the site owner I would disallow gun deals.

EDIT: grammar (see comments lol)

Mod (27/5/18): Due to a multitude of comments, reports and attacks, as well as feedback in this poll and in other deals, firearm deals are no longer permitted to be posted. Comment

Poll Options

  • 877
    Gun deals should be banned
  • 702
    Gun deals should be allowed


  • Firearms deals are now banned. Not because we have an argument for or against but because of the shitshow of comments, reports and attacks this brings to OzBargain. Not helpful for bargain hunters, moderators or members.


    • As the ozbargain community gets bigger I see more and more of these controversial threads. I'm not sure if it's because more people means more comments and differing opinions, or just if people brought together only by cheap deals tend to not have much else in common.

    • Very disappointing. Australia is home to nearly 1 million law abiding firearm owners, and many of them use ozbargain daily. It's unfortunate you've banned firearms (which contribute to merely a handful of deaths every year) but not cars, alcohol, fatty foods or even knife deals, which are all far bigger causes of mortality.

      • I have neither upvoted nor negged your comment because I both agree and disagree.

        In my opinion, it's not the fact that they contribute to death but more so the controversy that arises from these deals. It isn't a good image to have a gun deal with such contention on our front page. Some people really do take this stuff seriously and it's easy to get out of hand.

        But then again caged/free range debate also brings much contention so it's a fine line.

        Something that has come to mind though is if someone wanted a gun, they would normally go to their local gun store to buy one. A gun isn't exactly something you buy up on when the price drops..

        • Just like anything else you might purchase, people want to get the best price possible. A gun is no different.

        • @timlaher: Yes while I can see that it is a valid point, the comments/attacks go to such an extreme it's not about the bargain or the product any more. It's about a massive for and against argument.

        • @pennypincher98: The people trolling in the comments should be the one's dealt with then, instead of banning the deals. Should the people starting the extreme attacks really be rewarded?

        • @timlaher: I agree that low prices are desirable, but I disagree that every low price is to be advertised. For example, to reduce unnecessary medical procedures, advertisements in the health industry are tightly restricted. Gun advertisements are regulated at the state level, but in many cases they limit advertisements to gun dealers. Therefore there is a gray area for a deal to be posted on OzBargain… Can a deal post be considered a form of advertisement?

        • @twocsies: I'd assume something is not advertising unless it's either done with financial backing or done by the merchant themselves. In this way I don't think it's advertising for a non dealer to post a deal, and it's legal for a dealer to post a deal anyway.

        • @timlaher: If firearm ads are regulated then ‘financial backing’ is not possible by conventional means. A hefty discount and grassroots exposure (OzB for example) gets around that restriction nicely. You may not subscribe to the principle of regulation of firearm ads but to ban them from OzB is consistent with that ideal.

        • @0jay: If it was meant to be as you say then it would be legislated against. It is however not.

        • @pennypincher98: The problem is that this gives power to people who make a big fuss - about anything - instead of standing by principles or even merit. What if a Christian group found this site and does not like atheist/pro-choice goods and services? Or a parents group found this site which doesn't like violent video games?

        • @0zblion:

          The big fuss was made by pro gun and anti gun people. That's the difference. The groups made up an equal portion of the community and by the votes seems slightly more on the anti-side.

          Parents group not liking video games would be a very small minority on this gaming heavy site so different situation. Hypothetical situations are always brought up in controversial debates (guns, gay rights, etc.) and frankly it's bullshit. The world never implodes and the sun still shines. There have been plenty of groups try to bully us to do things not in the community's interest so I wouldn't worry.

          The issue is that controversial topics often bring out the worst in people. We don't want to be the venue for these fights when people are looking for deals.

      • +2 votes

        Where did you find that source for the statistics on the number of Australian gun owners? These estimates indicate that the number of indviduals who own guns have been on a steady and substantial downward trend since the Port Arthur massacre - if that rate had countined, the number should be way below 1 million. The issue in recent times seems to be that existing gun owners are stockpiling absurd numbers of guns, which doesn't provide a healthy glimpse into the psyche of the industry…

        • Then maybe you should find statistics that aren't cherry picked by GCA, Phil Alpers is a known fraud who has an honorary qualification.

          He's been debunked numerous times and is still not trained or qualified to be the firearms expert he labels himself as.

        • @typhoonadventure:

          I haven't looked into his background, but exactly which statistics are you claiming are misleading? The source links back to documents released by the Government that collaborate those two claims.

        • @Tyrx: It's cherry picked many times.

          It's worth a read, one of the sad things of dealing with these people is they will take a statistic they don't like and flare it, unfortunately our government statistics are not great either… I know this from dealing with a lot of these things.

          Take for example firearms use in australia, we get told it's relatively low, here are statistics, but it's one of those things where authorities love to keep a lot of stuff quiet, not suggesting there is a conspiracy but in my life i've been exposed to numerous volatile situations involving all sorts of weapons in the line of duty, a lot of the time they will sensationalize some of the smallest stuff, ignore or under report the rest.

          I really do feel sorry for many firearms owners in this country with what they are subjected to and to make it worse there are a few out there who do the wrong thing but either know how to play the system well, or have funds for lawyers who do with no conscience.

          That being said it is a very tiny part of violence and security issues in this country and the issue i've got with people like Mr Alpers and GCA is their hardcore lobbying makes things worse for everyone.

          Their lobbying, harassment and demands while they may feel are helping, drains police and government resources, I can cite many cases where witchhunt investigations have been started over pathetic things and extra workloads added to departments due to their meddling putting pressure on an already overworked system.

          It didn't make things safer, it did the opposite, and a lot of the time with operations government will still write up things to paint them in a positive light.

          If you want a very good example of this we have the Nemer case, can't go into more details unfortunately.

          I mention much stuff from my work most people wouldn't believe it but the amount of times even security contractors have to deal with the nasty side of the criminal world and we expect to have police and government backup on issues, only to have statistics fudged.

          Right now we're trying to have security staff allowed to wear cut protection, so a simple fabric top to limit sharps damage, government have dictated that is the realm of each state and territories police, the police in each state consider it the same as a class c firearm, yet treat it like a class D, it's very hard to get permission to use and we are told it can only be used on specific jobs….. only thats body armor, so ballistic protection.

          We're asking for sharps protection, which give any other career field, if there is PPE around that can minimize workplace injury, WHS would usually dictate it's a good idea to have it, but even here we zone a stab proof shirt as body armor to the same level as ballistic armor.

          We take this to state panel and GCA and the greens, alpers and the such will stand up and demand we don't get heard and that if trained professionals are given protective gear, it will land in the hands of criminals who will be harder for the police to deal with…

          So you can see the issues with these groups, statistics are then cited which are used to make laws tighter in areas where they shouldn't be, complicated and confusing where they shouldnt be, and extremely vague in areas they shouldnt be.

          This is a hard thing for me to write, personally, i've had numerous sharps injuries over my career, i've had illegal weapons drawn against me, everything from a broken bottle all the way up to guns. It's traumatic, so I completely understand someone hating guns and having bad opinions on them, but we're on a different level here, most of the issues here are with illegal weapons, we've got some of the tightest laws around.

          We cite statistics that i've seen first hand are very skewed, when I was stuck by a blood filled syringe responding to an incident in a hospital, it was immediately burried and covered up, they did not want it coming out that this had happened in a government hospital.

          The amount of times we've had to deal with situations involving a firearm, we've now found unless a news truck rocks up or shots are fired, it does not even get reported properly.

          It's usually not the cops fault either, i've had a high grade baton used against myself and a co-worker during a critical incident once, which later "went missing" in police evidence. Investigation into it went nowhere and the offender claimed we'd used a maglite to beat them (we turned the baton on him to disarm him). Prosecution dropped that case, it never went anywhere and a baton (which for those of you playing at home in my state and in others is treated as a firearm) went missing in custody…. it got burried.

          So we get told our staff can't have basic protective gear for the same reason ballistics armor gets denied to h6 workers, where they say :
          A) we just don't have weapons around to justify it
          B) statistics say it won't happen.

          So sorry to break anyone who wants to go on a conspiracy theory trail but government statistics are done by humans, unfortunately even if they are accurately done (which they aren't) there is still a ton of under reporting, I recently had a neighbor from hell, the guy had done aggrovated assault and drugs convictions in another state, police here did nothing with him claimed he was clean, claimed they searched his house when he went violent, he's since threatened people with a firearm (he can't legally obtain one), yet here in a "safe" area (he now lives on the otherside of the highway after being evicted), he's now been reported numerous times for threatening people with a firearm, yet no chargers have been laid and he's never been caught with it on his person, so that all goes down as heresay, despite the person being a known criminal with established links.

          So him and everyone like him add nothing to our statistics until its too late unfortunately.

          What I would suggest is anyone who is against guns, awesome good for you, but go out and learn about them, learn the channels that people have to go through to get them, learn how they work instead of reading Alpers articles, learn about industries that use them (police, military, security, pest control, zoo's, teaching, defense production, farmers, sporting shooters), try to understand who they are and their requirements.

          You may pickup a bit of understanding, you may not, but i'd ask you try, as still disagree with them afterward, we can all agree we don't want illegal firearms or any kind of weapon or even a freaking car in the hands of someone who is untrained to handle them in a safe manner and lacks the conviction to prevent misuse of them in their hands.

      • +56 votes

        Very disappointing. Australia is home to nearly 1 million law abiding firearm owners

        It's also the home of nearly 2 million law abiding sex toy owners…

        But they are banned from OzBargain too…

        Get over it…

    • Would be it possible to add something to auto revoke for negs that have a single comment with the word or words "neg" or "not a deal" etc… ?
      It might save you guys some time on post's like that where people are constantly posting invalid votes.

    • Honestly I'm just here for the drama

    • Just need to add it to the rules.

    • So disappointed in this decision.

      I do understand the amount of work and negativity the idiots can bring to the site, but penalising law abiding, registered gun owners, such as myself because of anti gun people is a shame. They are not prohibited items and yes, they rightly have restrictions on them but are still a legal retail item subject to deals.
      I have them for the farm and take part in target shooting competitions and am always on the eye out for a deal of any kind.

      Maybe gun sale deals could have a mandatory notice to state that the items are controversial, but are legal and negative comments are not allowed (unless it's genuinely about price), as it derails the thread?
      Any disruption to the discussion may result in account suspension?
      Not enough moderators? I'm sure there are many long term members who would volunteer, so as people do on may forums and web sites.

      I love this site and visit it multiple times daily and tell everyone about it, but I am so disappointed in you doing this, OzBargain.

    • Why not just have a locked feed option for controversial but legal items for over 18 year old users? personally would love to be able to select what shows up and what doesn't in my deals feed like guns, over 18 items, legal drugs ect ect.

    • Wow that poll escalated, numbers were around the 400-mark or so equally about 12 hours ago.

    • Great job Niel!

    • I think you've done an awesome job of moderating Neil. I think it is a pity that we're not more tolerant of each other and our differences. We each have different hobbies and passions. So long as we all abide by the law and are considerate it should be sweet. As a moderator though, you seem fair; well done.


        I'm not fooled by your calm language - i can see you're about to go postal.

    • Seriously… Just get your web devs to clone the NSFW filter to NSFH (not safe for hippies) and allow people to opt out. Don't persecute everyone cause of a few whingers.

    • Hi neil,

      Long-time lurker, and I'm sure you've received a lot of feedback on this decision so I understand if this isn't given much consideration, but I made an account because I very much disagree with, not necessarily this decision, but the reasons behind this decision, because it's effectively giving in to the Heckler's Veto - people getting something banned not on merits, but by making a big fuss. And the precedent it sets that anyone can get anything banned, so long as they get enough of their friends to flood the site and make a big fuss about that thing. I understand that dealing with these arguments, and the controversy is not fun, and not what you signed up for (and certainly aren't being paid enough to do) but please consider the precedent and the logic this sets for anything else which people will politicize (abortion related pills/services?) or which people might feel strongly about (political merchandize of any sort).

      Thank you.

  • I like your own suggestion—

    "leave and troll else where"

  • could ?
    could and should

    • lol good spot

      • Like that was the only error…

        OzBargain tries to be a family friendly community/site. I know there are many deals which sometimes cross the boundary. (e.g. alcohol).
        But I think the wider community censusconsensus (not OzBargain but Australia) is that firearms should be restricted. I don't think OzBargain should be promoting firearms.

        I know smoking advertising is restricted so there are no cigerettecigarette deals but if OzBargain started having such deals I would probably leave and troll else whereelsewhere. The gun deals do make me consider this?.

        Just wondering what the community feeling about thisthese gun deals areis?.

        IMO.: Gun deals will eventually cause negative public attention for OzBargain. So if I was the site owner, I would also disallow it for this reason.

    • +55 votes

      Some people are only alive because guns are illegal and hard to get here.

      • Firearms are neither illegal nor hard to get in Australia. We have a robust licencing system, we have background checks, but anyone of sound character can purchase a firearm for recreational hunting or sporting use.

      • Some people are only alive because guns are illegal and hard to get here.

        Indeed, if the rifle range was still open 21 years ago Mum and Dad would've had something better to do!

        • And some are alive because not having one has:
          - prevented them or their spouse from shooting themselves
          - prevented their children from shooting them (or others)
          - prevented someone else's children, or someone else, from shooting them (or others)

          Workplace accidents happen, even when you clean a gun. And not everyone who might (otherwise) be able to get a gun can be expected to stay balanced and trustworthy enough to have one as like anybody else they might get in a bad argument or somehow otherwise become emotionally upset enough to use it. Drugs, gambling, depression, madness, alcoholism, chemical abuse and all manner of awful things can happen to an individual- allowing such people to own this kind of weapon just means everyone else ends up having to carry.

          If you are expecting a war on your doorstep, you are on the road to having argument to have a gun. But we aren't, and the sad fact is that given them, many of will eventually use it in anger. So we don't need them.

          Personal freedoms are important and vital, and the freedom NOT to have to carry is great too. If you want freedom, there are better ways to attain some, such as constitutional reform, a Bill of Rights, and all kinds of improvements to how democracy can be improved so that it protects the people against the many and far greater threats to personal freedoms.

        • @zerovelocity: "many of will eventually use it in anger"
          You're not saying that many gun owners will turn their guns on humans are you?

        • @zerovelocity:

          Great post. Not sure whybthe negs.

        • @zaidoun:
          Well i would say gun owners are more likely to use them against people than non gun owners.

          So many in a relative context would probably be quite accurate.

        • @TrendyTim:

          Well i would say gun owners are more likely to use them against people than non gun owners.

          Another stupid comment, all "gun owners" are responsible, law abiding citizens that have had to struggle through all the stupid and moronic red tape and gummint rules to actually acquire a license and then more red tape to finally get their hands on a weapon.

        • @zaidoun: For many reasons, a lot of people with guns are passionate about them. They want to see them as being legitimate tools appreciated by the average person so that everyone will end up having to have one too.

          I have enough trouble toting around wallet+keys+whatever else, without having to remember a gun and ammo for personal safety, let alone a-robot equipped gun platform and whatever comes next.

        • @nocure:
          If my tongue in cheek comment is stupid, what does that make your over generalisation, do you personally know every single "gun owner" to prove that … oh that's right gun nuts don't care about proof in their hands only guns so they can shoot those wascally wabbits,, so easy so set off too.

          And yes, all that stupid AND moronic red tape to keep the total nut jobs from legally owning guns its just soo stupid, getting a gun should be easier than getting a car (◔_◔).

      • Some could argue that others may be dead because guns are illegal.

      • guns aren't illegal here they are restricted to specific classes, of which some are actually not that hard to obtain.

      • Some victims of murder, raper, manslaughter would be alive if they had guns with them.

        • Some might not have survived/escaped if the criminal had a gun. I would say you have a better chance of running if the criminal was chasing you with a knife than a gun.

          If my unpleasant neighbour was able to buy a gun from Kmart, I would wanna buy a gun too. Because I have a gun, you should probably get a gun too. Buying guns to protect ourselves from those who have guns… Sounds a little crazy to me. Lucky we don't have that kind of fear as Americans do.

  • +53 votes

    The catholics will want to ban the condom deals … the muslims will want to ban the non-halal/alcohol deals …

    I think the line has been drawn in a sensible place already

    • Us athiests want the religion deals banned.

      • +24 votes

        I don't think its just US Atheists. I think australian atheists want the same.

        • -14 votes

          It's a fact that atheists actually have read and understood the bible, torah, quran, etc etc, unlike the average religious person.

          That is why they are atheist, because they see the inconsistencies and irrationalities. The people following a religion, don't actually follow the scriptures… they follow peer-pressure, public perception, and what is said by the preacher. Atheists in general are not only more versed in Evolution and History, but the very scriptures people follow so blindly-devoutly.

          I'm agnostic.

        • @Kangal:

          Can't agree with you more. I can't decide which religion to follow so I thought f—k it. Not gonna follow any.

          I've seen family members getting into cult disguised as religion. Nasty.

        • +1 vote

          Surprised this doesn't have more momentum:

        • +4 votes

          an atheist just believes in one less god than a monotheist

        • @sp00ker:

          Surprised this doesn't have more momentum:

          I've always been troubled by the fact that the ABS advises people on how to answer a subjective question under pain of penalty.

        • +3 votes

          @Kangal: > It's a fact that atheists actually have read and understood the bible, torah, quran, etc etc

          No it's not. Who has the time to read the sacred text of one religion, let alone all of them?!

        • @pandabun: I follow the Rule of Probability. Miracles are not Miracles, but very very very rare events.

        • @Kangal: That is so much generalization and assumption. Im a converted Christian and I would says Im very respectful, reasonable, consistence and rationalize person. There are also many intelligent people whom choose to follow their faith too.

        • @frewer:
          Yes, I agree it is a generalisation.
          It doesn't apply to everyone.
          However, it applies to the majority.

          Which is why I'm agnostic.
          I don't label myself as an atheist and be tied down with all that baggage. And I think someone like Dawkins' crude approach doesn't work.

          That doesn't mean people shouldn't respect each other. Respect is a 2-way street though, and anyone can be lacking in it be a peasant or a professor, so if there's anything that we should preach in a Secular Nation it's tolerance.

        • @Kangal: Assume makes an assUME. I couldn't agree with you more on tolerance subject. Actually, Dr Ravi has a very good talk about it

          However, in reality, the governments ( AU, UK, USA, EU ) promote pluralistic and multiculture society, which is falling apart in EU … it does not works …
          Islam has a low tolerance level for insulting their belief. Even Richard Dawkin's buddies turn on him. My workplace, if they aren't pick on me then they pick on each others, most of the time it feels like working with a bunch of 5yrs.

          |That doesn't mean people shouldn't respect |each other. Respect is a 2-way street though, |and anyone can be lacking in it be a peasant |or a professor, so if there's anything that we |should preach in a Secular Nation it's |tolerance.

          Again Im not disagree with anything in that paragraph. But it is impractical … I preach a good news and live a very tolerance life.

        • @abb:

          No it's not. Who has the time to read the sacred text of one religion, let alone all of them?!

          I agree. What a ludicrous statement presented as fact!

          Besides, there are way more interesting/better written fantasy series out there. Pick up Malazaan Book of Fallen (Steven Erikson) or Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time (series), if you want to read voluminous tomes. ;)

          Religion is something that may have had a valid purpose several centuries ago, however, it has no place in contemporary society. That said, I do believe that if folks choose to have personal beliefs that help them cope with the rigours of life, that is absolutely fair… but it should not form part of ones' identity and it definitely isn't something to be thrust into other peoples' faces.


          Religion is an anachronism. Personal theological beliefs are fair dinkum, but keep it private and don't let it define you as a person.

        • @gearhead:
          Well, maybe not all of them… however proportionally more atheists read scripture than actual devout people.
          Seems like an oxymoron.

        • @Kangal:

          Maybe I'm hanging around the wrong folk (or maybe the right ones :) ), but none that I know actually do. I do have an incredibly religious Hillsong girl at work, who is batshit crazy, she probably reads scripture to "schlick schlick".

        • @gearhead:
          I can't believe I had to Google what schlick meant. Oh my God.

          Well, I don't mean atheists read the latest Weekly christian blurb, but more often, they've actually read the scripture fully or more of it, and at face-value, which is why they believe against it. I mean, if you read it, you'll see how ridiculous some of the things in them are.

      • Us athiests want the religion deals banned.

        I, for one, would just like for everyone to be able to freely give their feedback on the product.

      • +1 vote

        Don't pretend to speak for me, mate.

    • -4 votes

      Why would Muslims want to ban anything? I think that's an atheist thing

  • Providing we have good gun laws, and rigorous psychological testing, then a bargain is a bargain. What if you bought a gun, and had it held at a shooting range?

    It's not like we get a free gun when opening a bank account..

    P.S: I think 99% of the population should not own guns.

    • i think that if only such a small percentage should be able to use a gun then ozbargain is not the right site.

      • community/site.

        So a minority doesn't have a place in a community? /troll

        • just saying that many people shouldn't be exposed to guns or have access. So why expose everyone to gun deals?

        • @Gimli: You're not saying many, you're saying any. You know you can filter deals, right?

        • @rompastompa: i can filter deals. but everyone else who shouldn't have a gun won't necessarily filter them

        • @Gimli: 99% of 24million is 240,000… that's a lot!

          In my opinion, the issue isn't whether the deals should be banned, it's the processing of gun laws. Let people buy guns if they fit a certain criteria, let them shoot them at controlled shooting ranges.

          Do you know how hard it is to get a gun license? I don't, but I would hope it filters out the 'oh look, there's a gun sale - 90% off! I'll broden it!'

        • @rompastompa: Difficulty of the licence depends on the type of firearms the license is for. My friend got a license and it didn't seem to be too difficult from what he described but i think he got a very basic license. Now he has a gun at his place which he doesn't even use.

          I can't see how that gun is going to do anyone any good.

        • @Gimli: I think you should be lobbying the criteria for getting a gun license, rather than whether or not there is some public awareness of sales.

          I don't think people will be swayed to buy a gun, just because it was 20% off.

          Have you asked why your friend bought the gun? Was it because there was a sale, or because they wanted a gun?

        • @rompastompa: Not based on ozbargain.
          People see a deal and buy whether they need it or not.

          When things get upvoted it promotes the product.

        • @Gimli: >shouldn't be exposed to guns

          Um … why?

        • @Diji1: why would you suggest to someone who is part of the 99% who shouldn't own guns to own a gun?

        • @Gimli: >I can't see how that gun is going to do anyone any good.

          So what?

        • @Diji1: and it can do harm …

        • @Gimli:
          No, not harm: irreversible harm. Which is why we shouldn't have death sentences either.
          Also they're effective on a quick, efficient, easy, and mass scale.
          Guns are not toys, nor are they hunting tools.
          The primary purpose of a gun is to kill another person.

          I don't trust the public to drive properly on the road, so how the heck can I trust them to be responsible with a gun ??

          Sure, screening and licensing seem like a good compensation in theory, but its managed by the government, the same guys that you can't trust to implement NBN, you know they're going to stuff up. In practice, it just doesn't work out well. Not unless you have a an iron-clad society that has a personal empathetic culture like Japan.