The Sale of All Non-Kitchen Knives >20cm to Be Banned in Victoria

mapax on 28/05/2025 - 10:46
Last edited 28/05/2025 - 16:50 by 1 other user

The banning of the sale of >20cm non-kitchen knives and machetes goes into effect at midday today in Victoria and in September it will be illegal to own them with fines of more than $47,000 or 2 years imprisonment. This is expected to include all non-kitchen knives such as camping, bushcraft, hunting and horticultural knives unless the government changes the laws between now and September.

How Victoria's machete sale ban will be enforced

Victorians who took part in the Fiskars deal or any of the other camping knife deals that are >20cm will have to surrender them when the amnesty begins or face excessively harsh penalties.

These laws will do little to stop criminals from using kitchen knives, hatchets, buying interstate, or simply making crude machetes from flat bar. It is only going to have a major impact on law abiding citizens.

As a park ranger/natural resource manager it’s common to see >20cm knives being used for hand weeding and machetes/brush hooks being used to clear brush such as kunzea when working around sound sensitive areas/animals.

Update from ABC-

The government previously said a machete was longer than 20cm, but have since said knives under that length could also come under the ban

General Discussion Knife

Comments

    • mskeggs on 28/05/2025 - 10:57
      +51

      So best to do nothing at all

      In this case, probably?
      Using a sharp thing as a weapon is already very illegal, and there are also already very strict laws about knives.
      Inconveniencing everyone who ever needs to use a blade seems overkill rather than enforcing existing rules.

      I mean, what exactly is the difference between a $6 Bunnings timber saw and a machete if you are seeking to threaten somebody?

      It is the threatening that is the crime, not the cutting implement.

      I understand the parallel with firearms laws, but firearms are an order of magnitude more deadly and many orders of magnitude less useful.

      • Duckie2hh on 28/05/2025 - 11:00
        +14

        timber saw

        I would argue this is far less deadly than a machete. For one, the victim ain't going to be still whilst you are taking the time to saw them.

        • mapax on 28/05/2025 - 11:02
          +5

          Have you ever used a pruning saw?

        • mskeggs on 28/05/2025 - 11:11
          +11

          If some kids swing saws at each other next week, will you support restricting their sale too?
          If the week after some other kids chase after each other with a 30cm bread knife, what then?
          I appreciate if you don't work outside, or have a garden or go camping then a 21cm blade is only useful in the kitchen, but surely you can agree making a useful tool illegal needs to be strict if it is to have any outcome, and that would inconvenience the large numbers of people using them legitimately.

          And the ability to substitute equally harmful items for the banned tools - a kitchen carving knife, a screwdriver, a swung timber saw - means the ban is unlikely to reduce stabbing/slashing crimes?

          It isn't like with guns where people don't have dozens of substitute tools at hand.

          • dmac on 29/05/2025 - 10:18

            @mskeggs:

            isn't like with guns where people don't have dozens of substitute tools at hand.

            Scary thought - These days we have 3D Printers…

            • mskeggs on 29/05/2025 - 11:42
              +1

              @dmac: Not really. Barrels can't be printed and ammo is also strictly controlled.
              A 3d printed gun in Australia where sub-assemblies are as tightly regulated as full weapons is as much a danger to the shooter as the target.

              One of my kids did 3d print a knife that could do some damage, despite just being PLA.

              • dmac on 30/05/2025 - 11:41
                +1

                @mskeggs: Relieving to know. Thank you!

      • trapper on 28/05/2025 - 19:10
        +5

        Also a kitchen knife is more deadly than a machete anyway - because it can be used to stab.

        Even a short knife can easily deliver a very serious or fatal injury.

        • Muppet Detector on 30/05/2025 - 12:48
          -1

          The shorter the knife, the closer they have to get to their victim. Unless they have decent aim I suppose.

          I think we already have laws equivalent to rounding, bodily harm and GBH. I think the purpose of making at least some weapons illegal, it gives the police more authority to confiscate them.

          As far as I know, if police see Johnny with a 21cm weapon, police can't do much about it. But if carrying/in possession of that weapon is illegal, it gives the police more authority to act.

          Additionally, most jurisdictions have party offences. Meaning even if only one kid has the offensive weapon, every other kid in the group shares in the conviction as if it was their crime.

          • mapax on 30/05/2025 - 13:38
            +1

            @Muppet Detector:

            As far as I know, if police see Johnny with a 21cm weapon, police can't do much about it

            That is very much incorrect.

            Carrying a weapon, like a knife, without a lawful reason is illegal in Victoria. The Control of Weapons Regulations 2021 and Control of Weapons Act 1990 outline rules of owning weapons and dangerous items. Violating these laws can lead to criminal charges, fines, and even imprisonment. Examples of knives you cannot carry without a lawful purpose include Swiss Army Knives or Box-Cutters, Kitchen knives, or bayonets.

            • RTX9090Ti on 31/05/2025 - 14:44

              @mapax: Jason bourne can do lethal stuff with just a pencil or pen. its not the tool, its the skill to use it.

      • Dr Phil on 29/05/2025 - 09:52
        -3

        yep, they will ban chainsaws next, then hedge trimmers and lawn mowers.
        Down the line will be hammers, gardening shears etc

        The bottom line is that this terrible Vic Labor Government is struggling to lift its approval rating.

        Everything they do sinks them deeper and deeper

        This move to ban large knives is in line with thier exremely harsh COVID19 lockdowns.

        And at the same time they are cutting police numbers

        The sooner this Vic government goes the better for Victorians

        • mskeggs on 29/05/2025 - 11:44
          +6

          Sadly, knee jerk laws aren't limited to Victorian governments of either stripe. This is just a dumb law.
          Do you think a Liberal opposition would campaign on loosening machete laws? This isn't a left/right issue, but one of sensible leadership.

        • Duckie2hh on 29/05/2025 - 11:49
          +1

          Yup, I guess the liberals have better policy…. who are they again?

        • Randolph Duke on 29/05/2025 - 12:44
          +1

          Everything they do sinks them deeper and deeper

          The Liberals proposed this ban previously and have attacked Labor for the initial September rollout, so if you're expecting a machete nirvana in Victoria you're going to be disappointed.

        • Muppet Detector on 30/05/2025 - 12:55

          It's not a VIC thing. Similar legislation has been in Qld for quite a while now, maybe other states too.

          The way I see it is they are making the most commonly used weapons harder to get hold of, harder to possess and harder to carry around.

          As they make the penalties harder, it gives the police authority to act preemptively rather than after the harm has been caused.

          Will they find other weapons? Sure. Will they find other workarounds? Sure. But this is a start and this legislation can be expanded or extended to capture further threats as they become known.

          In the short term, we are sending these thugs the message that we are watching them. We're telling them that it's harder to behave how you used to. We're giving police power to confiscate illegal items (rather than act after harm was caused) and we're making it unattractive for groups and gangs to possess these weapons because of the associated party laws.

          • trapper on 30/05/2025 - 15:20
            +1

            @Muppet Detector:

            The way I see it is they are making the most commonly used weapons harder to get hold of, harder to possess and harder to carry around.

            Knives are the most commonly used weapons in Australia. Not illegal to purchase or own. ;)

            Carrying or using any item as a weapon is already illegal in Australia.

            The police don't need any additional powers to arrest and charge these people running around with machetes.

      • nikey2k27 on 01/06/2025 - 15:05

        threatening should be crime and kids have Kinfe like in Queensland jack law no kid need weapon like Kinfe in shopping center or PT and public spaces cops power to wand people. But then farmer right have Kinfe in back Ute like farm right have gun in back seat of Ute used for farm worker said same farm can't go in mel cbd with gun in hand on PT. it like have my gel guy out in open much cover or in case.

        • mskeggs on 01/06/2025 - 16:53

          Threatening (menacing) is already a crime, as is carrying a knife without a legitimate reason. There is nothing preventing effective policing, the people in the most recent incident have been arrested.

    • mapax on 28/05/2025 - 11:01
      +34

      Using the existing laws and not having a revolving door of a bail system would be a good starting point. Allegedly all the offenders in the recent machete attack were known to police.

      Would you rather require "registration" of long machetes

      20cm isn’t long though. Criminals will just use kitchen knives or make machetes. Would you suggest registering all kitchen knives?

      • Duckie2hh on 28/05/2025 - 11:02
        +3

        Well you have to draw the line somewhere right?

        Using the existing laws and not having a revolving door of a bail system

        agreed.

      • dmac on 29/05/2025 - 10:38

        Weapon restrictions are symbolic when someone's committed to violence - it's a more systemic issue than access to long blades.
        You're right - the 'known to police' pattern shows our system catches people after damage is done, not before - (minority report?).

        What does 'using existing laws' actually look like for high-risk individuals who haven't yet committed their worst offense? We seem stuck between doing little beyond identifying risky individuals or heavy incarceration after a crime - often making youth offenders into career criminals through prison networking and knowledge sharing.

        What specific interventions could interrupt someone on a concerning trajectory before they escalate to serious violence?

        • SlickMick on 29/05/2025 - 11:23
          +1

          Maybe "being known to police" needs to be enough to lose your right to access kitchens, gardens, camping and society. When you're fit to be removed from the "watch list", you can rejoin society.

          [Not thought through. Just a suggestion for further consideration.]

          • Grunntt on 29/05/2025 - 13:09
            +1

            @SlickMick: "There is no clear-cut definition for the phrase, according to a policing expert, prompting concerns around stereotyping and legal risk."

            I've always thought this was an extremely vague and unhelpful phrase and it looks like every state has varied ideas of what it means.

            • SlickMick on 31/05/2025 - 17:45

              @Grunntt: To the police I know, it refers to the people they are continually arresting. They get to know them quite intimately, since they visit them more often than they visit their mums.

              Apart from that jerk "doctor" in your link who says it includes victims and witnesses, I don't see much of an issue. (He must have been fun to partner with when he was on the job. Everyone else in that story contradicts him.)

              So they have separate lists for terrorists, criminals and mental health "likelys" - makes sense.

              I think "in the system" is another term commonly used, which is exactly what it sounds like.

              Seems pretty simple to me: if you're "in the system" you lose your right to use metal cutlery until you can get yourself name out of the system.
              I acknowledge that it might not be straight forward getting out of the system if you accidentally get in there, but it's a price I'd be willing to pay if it meant known trouble makers are off the street.

              • Grunntt on 31/05/2025 - 21:08

                @SlickMick:

                To the police I know, it refers to the people they are continually arresting……
                …Apart from that jerk "doctor" in your link… I don't see much of an issue. (Everyone else in that story contradicts him.)

                Everyone else? Looks like the ACT and QLD don't necessarily agree with the police you know by the look of it.

                ACT Policing considers a person known to police if they have had significant contact.
                "The interaction may or may not be criminal in nature," a spokesperson said. "This can include jobs involving checking on a person’s welfare and missing persons reports."

                Queensland Police also said the phrase generally refers to having an interaction with police, which "could be a street check, talking to police as a victim, witness or alleged offender

                South Australia Police declined to comment.

                • SlickMick on 01/06/2025 - 14:50
                  -1

                  @Grunntt: Yeah, some even specifically contradicted him along the lines of "victims and witnesses wouldn't never be considered persons of interest".

                  If a person was a criminal they should already be in jail. A person of interest is someone the police suspect are likely to commit a crime, with the intent to stop a terrible incident before it happens.

                  It makes me wonder whether the part in quotes "could be a street check, talking to police as a victim, witness or alleged offender" actually came from qld police or was the biased reporter's embellishment, Qld police continued "doesn't necessarily mean they have been charged" which is the whole point, but it does imply that they need to be watched, which excludes victim's and witnesses.

                  Okay everyone else except the report and maybe some individual apparently representing Qld police who also doesn't quite get the point of needing to keep an eye on some people, and yourself obviously.

                  • Grunntt on 01/06/2025 - 21:56

                    @SlickMick: You don't know if that quote was from QLD Police or not. You don't know if it was a biased reporter. You don't know what I believe.
                    But somehow your opinion, that looks like it may be contradicted (or maybe not, as we don't know the extra facts of the matter), is the only fully truthful statement of fact?
                    Just accept that everything you believe isn't the only way to see a situation.

                    By the way, my original comment was pointing out how vague and varied that term was, no more and no less - I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I don't see the need for keeping an eye on people.
                    If you took the time to read and analyse what is right in front of you it may save you the effort of jumping to conclusions and inserting your own biases.

                    • SlickMick on 02/06/2025 - 15:27

                      @Grunntt:

                      You don't know if that quote was from QLD Police or not.

                      Only that it only aligns with the narrative of the jerk ex-detective , the reporter and yourself, but not with the usual use of the phrase.

                      You don't know if it was a biased reporter.

                      Yes I do. Read it again slowly and tell me that it's a neutral point of view

                      You don't know what I believe

                      Sure I do. You've clearly picked your hill and aren't willing to let this go.

                      But somehow your opinion

                      Not at all, I'm just saying I've encountered 3 people who contradict common knowledge, and something smells.

                      If I encounter 300, I'll consider okay, this phrase might be ambiguous. But for now, I'll stick with my theory there are just a few pedantic people that like to be difficult.

                      came to the conclusion that I don't see the need for keeping an eye on people

                      How did you come to the conclusion that I came to that conclusion? I'm only accusing you of being pedantic like that "doctor". I don't think I've ever alluded to your opinion on whether people need to be watched. Which is kind of ironic since that would have been a far more productive conversation.

          • Muppet Detector on 30/05/2025 - 18:17
            +1

            @SlickMick: Sort of like a rehab facility for drug offenders.

            Somewhere out bush where they can put in some hard yacka, learn a few skills and maybe even learn some manners.

            • SlickMick on 31/05/2025 - 17:50

              @Muppet Detector: Yeah, either you get rehabilitated or you don't come back. And def paying your own way.

      • Muppet Detector on 30/05/2025 - 13:16

        I read an article about how authorities in FNQ are addressing their youth crime problem. Wish I could remember, but it involved generational change A lot of fault was found in our child protection services, so tightening up the framework around those who care for the kids who end up in care.

        Mention of academic education, involvement in stage like courses and sporting associations. Mention of big brother like programs.

        Big play down on long term incarceration as the belief is they just learn how to be better criminals and make more criminal contacts for when they're released.

        There was talk of relocating offenders to new areas away from undesirable friends and influences, but I think this got lost in translation when people drew parallels between it and the stolen generation.

        I am a strong advocate for reserving periods of incarceration for only our worst offenders. I would like to see this exist in isolation with those known to each other also sent to different prisons.

        I do believe that when criminals intermingle, they just become better criminals and make stronger contacts to use upon their release.

        I am a great supporter of respecting a person's human rights, but I think we could reduce the standards of what we do offer to those criminals individually detained.

        For most kids though, I think we need to do better than incarcerate them for insignificant periods of time. Everything I can think of sounds like stolen generation all over again, but I don't know how else to break the cycle.

        =We need to separate the offending kids from those who are bad influences on them.
        = we need to get them into good homes where they are safe, cared for, loved, fed and clothed
        => we need to get them into environments where they have positive role models
        => we need to get them into school, address any learning difficulties and provide them with access to equal and just education.
        => we need to keep them busy/occupied => I dunno, stick em all in a swimming pool for a few hours a day

        IMO, the worst thing we can do is to incarcerate young offenders if it is ever an aim for them to reintegrate with mainstream society.

        • trapper on 30/05/2025 - 15:30

          Corporal punishment would work well on teenage offenders.

          We should bring back the cane, especially for violent offences.

          • Muppet Detector on 30/05/2025 - 16:55

            @trapper: Corporal punishment is still legal in at least Qld & NSW. May be in other states too, but I only know the laws of those two states.

            Was only a week or so ago that someone was calling for qld government to banish it. Their response was "we don't want to tell parents how to discipline their children".

            In Qld, corporal punishment also extends to the child's school master as they are the proxy disciplinarian in the absence of their primary care giver.

            I'm not sure how wide the NSW legislation is - if it includes school master.

            I was always getting the cane when I was at school. The parish priest used to hide me away from the nuns I got into trouble so often lol.

            Cane was still atound about 10 years ago in at least some Qld private schools. Often it is a condition of enrollment.

            Had a chat to a principal at one school. He said he actually used his cane in his window sill for extra security to stop window sliding.

            In lieu he had a plastic table tennis type bat with holes in it (less wind resistance).

            He said in the 22 years he had been principal there he had only ever given the cane once and this was at the offending child's parent's insistence. Offending child was putting pins inside spit bombs and spitting them through straws at other children in the class.

            He said he actually didn't like the cane as a form of punishment because it was humiliating and degrading. But the school board over rode him and it remained an available form of discipline.

            Whilst they were a bit shy with the cane, they did have quite the trigger finger though. They didn't tolerate very much undesirable behaviour.

            • The catch was, when a child was suspended, they spent their suspension during school hours on school grounds working with the school groundsmen.

            • initially, parent and child had meeting with principal (and any other relevant teachers etc) to discuss the offending behaviour, determine the length of penalty and get all the permission slips signed.

            • They were also forced to sing in the school choir that visited old folks homes each week.

            • Also had mugshot posted on bulletin board outside cafeteria and loss of cafeteria privileges.

            • Also required to be on school premises by 7:30 each morning for compulsory exercise. This compromised of at least walking around the oval until 8:30 (could swim if they wanted), even if it meant missing out on a sport practise in which they were otherwise enrolled. (8:30 was whole school breakfast).

            • Required to engage in a community service activity after school until 4:30 or until their parent could collect them from school.

            • Required to access school portal after hours to watch classes they missed etc and complete relevant homework and assignments. Teachers available on Xoom until 8pm if a student needs help, otherwise need an appointment at Teacher's next contact hours.

            • Parent required to attend next P& F meeting

            • Parent required to participate in classroom or as a volunteer at some school event.

            • Parent and child meeting with school principal on last day of suspension for principal to determine if more discipline is required.

            It was a brilliant school but very tough on you if you behaved in an undesirable way, but there weren't a lot of kids who were repeat offenders. They learned to pull their heads in fairly quickly if they thought about misbehaving.

            • trapper on 30/05/2025 - 18:31

              @Muppet Detector: I was meaning judicial corporal punishment.

              I'm not in favor of arbitrary corporal punishment by teachers etc - it's too open to abuse.

              • Muppet Detector on 30/05/2025 - 18:32
                +1

                @trapper: What does judicial corporal punishment look like?

                A public flogging?

                Ten lashes?

                • trapper on 30/05/2025 - 18:46

                  @Muppet Detector: A rattan cane or similar - it's a better alternative to prison, especially for young offenders.

                  Over and done with quickly and they can go home clutching their bum - rethinking all their bad decisions.

          • Muppet Detector on 30/05/2025 - 17:08

            @trapper: Speaking of Corporal Punishment, I just saw this news article.

            First and foremost, it does sadden me that this punishment appears to have gone too far (if this was the cause of death).

            Obviously, we can't go around applying anything close to this level of discipline. That this child was killed is atrocious.

            However, I was surprised by some comments about the young fella in question. He was caught red handed stuffing merchandise that he hadn't paid for, down the front of his pants. I'm just gonna go right out and say it => sounds like he was trying to steal the stuff to me…

            The young man was 24 at the time of this alleged offending. The speech implies that he had previously spent time in prison but apparently prison was unsuitable for him because "he changed after going to prison".

            "This young fella, we went to footy several times, we'd drive around town," he said.

            "He was a lovely young fella that just enjoyed life."

            "But Mr Lechleitner said the man had changed after going to prison."

            "That had a real lasting impact, that changed his mind. He came out a different person," he said.

            But Mr Lechleitner said the man had changed after going to prison.

            "That had a real lasting impact, that changed his mind. He came out a different person," he said.

            https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-30/nt-alice-springs-indi…

            What next? We're not ever going to be able to incarcerate offenders?

          • Protractor on 30/05/2025 - 18:21

            @trapper: I think it should apply to racial vilification too.What say you?

            • Muppet Detector on 30/05/2025 - 18:34

              @Protractor: Corporal punishment?

              Sure. I'm always in favour of a good keelhauling.

            • trapper on 30/05/2025 - 18:35
              -1

              @Protractor: Only violent offenses.

              Free speech should be absolute.

              • Protractor on 30/05/2025 - 20:49

                @trapper: OK.If you say,so.
                I'd hate to feel you feel barred from spruiking race hate because it imposed on your ability to do you, via your right to free speech..And because you think doing do is 'harmless'.

      • trapper on 30/05/2025 - 15:57

        Bail and parole etc should apply to the first offence only. You get one chance.

        • Muppet Detector on 30/05/2025 - 17:16

          I'm in favour of bail for times when the defendant can't get before a magistrate in a timely manner => say 10 days for committal - obviously if they enter a guilty plea or plea bargain, they remain incarcerated until sentencing.

          If the defendant can get before the magistrate within say five days, I am not sure I agree with bail at all.

          Not sure. I need to think about that = the whole innocent until proven guilty thing an all, but I could be persuaded to make exceptions for violent offences (like we do for murder), maybe even reverse the onus of proof.

          I think parole is a farce. Time off for good behaviour wtf??? If they're guilty of an offence, sentence them according to sentencing guidelines! None of this time off for good behaviour twaddle! If you behave, we will let you out when you've served your sentence FFS. Don't want to behave whilst incarcerated? Stay longer!

          • trapper on 30/05/2025 - 18:49

            @Muppet Detector: You raise good points.

            Although I still think bail can be useful in the case of minor or non-violent offences.

            Not for repeat offenders though, they had their chance.

        • Muppet Detector on 30/05/2025 - 17:22
          +1

          Bail and parole etc should apply to the first offence only. You get one chance.

          The one chance is generally reflected in their lighter sentence for first offenders.

          If we could create some meaningful diversionary programs, I think I would be ok with younger offenders attending those programs one or two times before we finally slam the cell door shut on them though.

          Depend on the seriousness of the crime though I guess.

          For some offences, the only chance they should get is that one they had before they displayed their disgusting behaviour.

          Still not convinced prison is the right place for most young offenders though. I am sure we could do something better.

    • SlickMick on 29/05/2025 - 11:16
      +11

      Vehicles are increasingly being used to commit violent crimes, I think they need to be banned first.

      • Pussqunt on 29/05/2025 - 14:33
        +5

        The other half of these kids probably use the bus. Ban public transport.

        These things keep happening in malls. Ban public places.

        • aqoz on 29/05/2025 - 19:03
          +4

          Most malls are privately owned, so we should ban privately owned places. Wait…

        • Muppet Detector on 30/05/2025 - 17:27

          These things keep happening in malls. Ban public places.

          If we ban public places, where would the public flogging happen?

      • Muppet Detector on 30/05/2025 - 13:23

        Perhaps people could just lock their vehicles, use loud alarms with flashing lights and attatch a good heavy steering wheel lock.

        Park off street when possible.

        Some sort of GPS "find my car" locator

        Some kind of auto lock/fob lock to disable car

        Stop leaving keys where they are easily accessible in the home. Maybe instead of gun safes we need key safes.

        In some not too distant world, I fear all of our cars will be controlled by AI and/or computer. And people will spend days in rooms watching monitors of all the cars. Then when they spot one doing something dodgy, they will just disable it or take over the controls and drive it to an alternative direction where big muscly guy waits with handcuffs, rope, gag and burlap sack.

        • SlickMick on 30/05/2025 - 13:50
          -1

          Your first 5 lines do nothing to stop someone using a vehicle as a weapon - I don't think stealing the weapon is the only method of acquisition.

          You last paragraph might be useful. I totally hope automated merging becomes compulsory, it would make a lot of sense to also have a mandatory do-not-plough-down-a-group-of-pedestrians feature.

          edit: But back on the topic of banning any item that could be used as a weapon, do you propose the solution is locking up everything that could be used as a weapon, with an alarm… I think automating the disabling of the weapon might be tricky.

          • Muppet Detector on 30/05/2025 - 17:28

            @SlickMick: Sorry, thought I was talking about preventing car theft by young thugs wanting to steal them for hooning and other criminal activity.

    • OzBarAnon on 29/05/2025 - 11:29
      +4

      You're presenting a false binary of either banning the knives or nothing at all, when this is obviously not the case. Have they tried viciously and brutally punishing the perpetrators of violent crime? Maybe that would be a better approach

      • mskeggs on 29/05/2025 - 11:46
        +4

        Or policies that reduce the drivers towards crime, such as reducing inequality, better access to education and services, improved rehabilitation and all the other things that actually do reduce crime?

        • abb on 30/05/2025 - 20:03
          +2

          and all the other things that actually do reduce crime?

          But if we ACTUALLY reduce crime then how would we get re-elected with our "tough on crime" policies that appeal to people's sense of revenge but actually exacerbate crime rates?

      • Muppet Detector on 30/05/2025 - 13:24

        Have they tried viciously and brutally punishing the perpetrators of violent crime? Maybe that would be a better approach

        What would that look like?

        • munecito on 31/05/2025 - 10:40

          Would look good. Better than ufc

    • Purp on 01/06/2025 - 13:37

      You really think criminals will register their weapons? Works well for criminals that get a hold of illegal firearms doesn't it.

    • Trubutwhy on 02/06/2025 - 22:49

      So best to do nothing at all?

      Usually if something won't help you find a different solution. Never learnt that in kindergarten?

  • Protractor on 28/05/2025 - 11:02
    +2

    It's a good start. I think it's a shot over the bow. It also means when they search warrant the known gang members and their warrens, they can find the banned weapons and throw the book at them. Call it 'leverage'.Personally I think they may know what they are doing. If you are reckless with showing your weeding tool in the wrong location, you'll get pinged.
    Also given the harm these things do in the wrong hands, (right now) I can't file this under nanny state. Yet.

      • mapax on 28/05/2025 - 11:06

        Where did I say that?

    • jv on 28/05/2025 - 11:11
      +1

      It's a good start.

      Why did it take so long then?

      • TEER3X on 28/05/2025 - 19:37
        +2

        Good things take time

      • try2bhelpful on 28/05/2025 - 19:54
        +1

        Because we get the sort of posts like the OP makes. There are some legitimate uses for some things that can become weapons. The problem is a matter of balance. It is the same with bail laws, they keep swinging depending on who is screaming loudest at the time. Murdoch media just hates the ALP so they will scream no matter what the current stances are.

      • JIMB0 on 28/05/2025 - 23:12
        +1

        Why didn't Ted or Denis do it when they were in power?

        • jv on 28/05/2025 - 23:19

          There weren't gangs running around with machetes then terrorising families and commiting aggravated assault in people's homes. This has started happening over the last decade…

          • JIMB0 on 29/05/2025 - 00:09
            +3

            @jv: That's because John Howard's baby bonus kids were too young at the time to be wielding a machete.

          • kzrocky on 29/05/2025 - 19:14

            @jv: There have always been gangs running around with machetes and other weapons, this has not changed. Im not statatician, but I would think the ratio of weapon attack compared to population would be about the same.

            • mapax on 29/05/2025 - 19:42

              @kzrocky: From crime stoppers Victoria

              Aggravated burglary in Victoria has reached a record high, rising by 26.8% in the past year alone.

              Increase in 'Assault with Weapon' offences at retail locations.
              29.1%

              Increase in retail crime reported, year-on-year increase between 2023 and 2024.
              32.3%

              Increase in retail crimes involving repeat offenders and organised crime groups.
              70%

            • jv on 29/05/2025 - 21:14
              +1

              @kzrocky:

              There have always been gangs running around with machetes

              It was pretty much unheard of in Melbourne until about 10 years ago…

              Then, for a long time, the government denied that Melbourne even had any gangs to avoid addressing the escalating crime.

          • Muppet Detector on 30/05/2025 - 18:26
            +1

            @jv:

            There weren't gangs running around with machetes then terrorising families and commiting aggravated assault in people's homes. This has started happening over the last decade…

            Then what were the Gangland murders all about? Moran Family? Carlton family? A whole bunch of bike gangs.

            Wasn't that why they weren't allowed to meet in groups or something following all that?

            I've never known a time when gangs weren't synonymous with Melbourne.

            • jv on 30/05/2025 - 18:30
              -1

              @Muppet Detector:

              I've never known a time when gangs weren't synonymous with Melbourne.

              Dan said there were no gangs in Victoria.

    • bigticket on 28/05/2025 - 12:53
      +2

      The nanny state is failing us. If brought into perspective there are situations where objects under someones control causes many many more deaths and injuries. For example, just google the stats on machete deaths/injuries against road fatalities/injuries.

      The victorian government should be banning cars if it is serious about saving lives.

      If victorian government used up parliamentary time passing such ill conceived knee jerk bills, should they at least had the foresight to include an equally deadly instrument, the humble meat cleaver?

      Are they also oblivious to what happened in Bondi. A plain knife was used. Opposing gangs all carrying knifes is equally dangerous if they were law abiding citizens and left their machetes at home.

      • try2bhelpful on 28/05/2025 - 12:54

        When you use phrases like “nanny state” you’ve already lost the argument.

        • bigticket on 28/05/2025 - 13:18

          ditto.

        • Protractor on 28/05/2025 - 19:14

          This decision is as far from nanny state as it can get.The "old banning cars" trope is the same one the gun lobby wheels out until the public throw up.
          Nanny state is the new Godwins law

        • bigticket on 28/05/2025 - 23:06

          phrases like “nanny state” you’ve already lost the argument.

          Did you hear that @Protractor, you lost too.

          New ozbargain rule: Don't attempt to use the words “nanny state”. It qualifies you as a looser, apparently. Facts don't matter, delusion is king.

      • SlickMick on 29/05/2025 - 11:33
        +3

        I normally hate the folk here crying "nanny state" whenever their liberties are limited for the sake of the greater good.
        But surely banning camping and gardening tools which are no more a risk than kitchen tools is absolutely ridiculous.

        I'm starting to think people hear will argue with anything.

      • Muppet Detector on 30/05/2025 - 13:40
        -1

        For example, just google the stats on machete deaths/injuries against road fatalities/injuries.

        That's just being silly.

        There are valid reasons to give people access to cars.

        How many valid reasons can you give for taking your machete shopping?

        equally deadly instrument, the humble meat cleaver?

        Firstly, a meat cleaver is used in quite a few industries, so banning chefs, butchers, sashimi chefs and housewives borders on ridiculous, however, if the wording in that article is accurate, there will be scope in the pictures and definition to capture the meat cleaver.

        Machete has actually been given a very broad definition.

        I however wonder why they didn't just ban all knives of all types and sizes and require persons who wish to
        Possess them to register them as well as have permits to carry them (between workplace, home and shops etc). Similar system to registering firearms, turtles and dogs !

        • SlickMick on 30/05/2025 - 14:05

          Hold on, if we're arguing over whether it's okay to take a machete shopping, I'm changing teams. I would appreciate also banning taking crowbars, baseball bats, and all knifes shopping too. In fact, anything that could be used as a weapon, you should need to have a valid reason for having it in a shopping centre, or anywhere else that it shouldn't be.

          Actually, if someone is driving a car in a shopping centre, it's probably for the same reason as taking a machete.

          I probably should actually look into exactly what this new law is, because you seem to be saying it is only in shopping centres, whereas I thought it was now illegal to purchase the item??

          From my perspective, it makes no difference whether it is a machete, a kitchen knife, a car, a baseball bat or anything else: using it as a weapon should be illegal, using it for it's intended purpose should not.

          • Muppet Detector on 30/05/2025 - 17:39

            @SlickMick: I am reasonably certain that if you inflict any harm on another person, it won't make any difference if you use an object you're legally allowed to have or one that you don't.

            You will still have committed an offence. The legal status of the object you used may just influence how many other offences or aggravating factors you can also be charged with.

            But sure, if you want to go on a rampage swinging your baseball bat at Westfield's, make sure to let us know how that works out for you.

            I am sure that an element of common sense will be applied once the dust settles. Knife sales (and other things) are also banned in Qld, but they don't make us trim our garden hedges with our teeth.

    • Chandler on 30/05/2025 - 16:21

      The (understandable, IMO) concern with laws like these is the application. Carrying a knife in public is generally illegal, in my understanding. Now owning such knives will be illegal, and as OP pointed out there are a number of acceptable and normal situations where one would want to own such an "illegal" knife.

      Now as I believe you suspect, these people won't be getting trouble with the police over the ownership of these knives, as the police will be unaware of said ownership. But if they were to ever come across the police for any reason: noise complaint, traffic stop, etc; and had the knives nearby: recently gardening, travelling home from camping, etc; then they could have the book thrown at them, even though they weren't "doing anything wrong".

      • Protractor on 30/05/2025 - 16:30

        Well if the cops come out in the next week and say we need 500 more cops, I'll review my support.As it is they'll be too busy targeting their know targets to worry about gardening Australia or All For Adventure, or nanna & pop chopping up their rogue bamboo. Given the backflip on the emergency services levy, to grovel for votes, this law probably won't last, anyway

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join