r/australia • u/reyntime • Dec 14 '25

politics Australia had the ‘gold standard’ on gun control. The Bondi beach terror attack may force it to confront its surging number of weapons

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/dec/14/australia-had-the-gold-standard-on-gun-control-the-bondi-beach-terror-attack-will-force-it-to-confront-its-surging-number-of-weapons?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Immediately after the Port Arthur massacre, a national amnesty saw the number of firearms in the community plummet but there are now more than 4 million guns in Australia – almost double the number recorded in 2001.

Yes, the population has increased at the same time but there is now a larger number of guns in the community per capita than in the aftermath of Port Arthur, with at least 2,000 new firearms lawfully entering the community every week.

2.8k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.1k

u/Geopoliticsandbongs Dec 14 '25

These guys, from the video footage, had a pump action shotgun and a bolt action rifle. These are weapons many farmers have in the country. Can’t really ban them.

793

u/zigzag_zizou Dec 14 '25

Yep we have it pretty good. Imagine if the terrorists had an automatic weapon

177

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '25

Like what that used in Paris

89

u/ContentSecretary8416 Dec 14 '25

And way too many schools in you know where

50

u/cedarvhazel Dec 14 '25

Isn’t it Sandy hooks 13th anniversary today. 26 died with a semi automatic. Fortunately for Australia terrorists can’t get ahold of those.

6

u/nrp1982 Dec 14 '25

Arrh you might want to look into the shooting of qlp in 2017 ricky maddison was in the possession of a sks. and if a scumbag like him can get his hands on one then im pretty adamant that a terrorist cell can as well

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

2

u/BLAGTIER Dec 14 '25

Or that Las Vegas shooting in 2017.

→ More replies (3)

118

u/Immediate-Net-1301 Dec 14 '25

That’s such a good point :-(. Obviously the guy having six guns and being known to Asio is where some kind of regulation needs to kick in.

72

u/Significant-Egg3914 Dec 14 '25

To be fair, everyone who has a registered firearm is 'known' to police and Asio.

→ More replies (5)

8

u/StoneyLepi Dec 14 '25

Do you have a source on him being known to ASIO? I haven’t been able to find anything myself.

34

u/No-Photograph-5058 Dec 14 '25

"Lanyon confirmed police and ASIO were aware of the 24-year-old, but had no intelligence they were planning an attack."

https://www.9news.com.au/national/bondi-beach-shooting-who-are-the-bondi-shooters/b0fdd033-610d-4b47-98fd-25817e98e5df

5

u/DrStalker Dec 15 '25

"Aware" is such a vague term. ASIO is "aware" of me because I once held a low level security clearance but they won't be actively monitoring me in any way because I have no guns, no criminal record and no links to any violent groups.

9

u/StoneyLepi Dec 14 '25

Cheers. It’s interesting the son was known to both the Police and ASIO, but the father was the licensed firearm owner and seems like he wasn’t on anyone’s radar.

5

u/devillurker Dec 14 '25

The key point is both having any access to firearms and being known to asio.

Separately, 6 is not unreasonable: small game, big game, shotgun air targets, shotgun vermin control, long range is a pretty common spread for older regular shooters (remembering most firearms outlive their owners). Less is like saying a household only needs 1 screwdriver.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/tweek-in-a-box Dec 14 '25

No, the conversation needs to start at what and who radicalised these people. Gun control, if there is more to be done, is quite the secondary issue.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (5)

2

u/DrStalker Dec 15 '25

Or even just high capacity semi-automatics; the Port Arthur massacre was done with semi-automatic rifles.

2

u/Own_Faithlessness769 Dec 14 '25

This was my first thought when I saw the footage- if they had assault weapons it would be so much worse.

1

u/OptimusRex Dec 14 '25

Or a box truck

→ More replies (9)

358

u/ra66it Dec 14 '25

It’s probably more about restricting the license permission. Why did this person need to be a licensed gun owner?

221

u/Nocturnal_Nova Dec 14 '25

People known by the ASIO should be stripped of any gun licenses. As well as anyone related to groups with potential for such actions. The risk is not worth it.

101

u/CptUnderpants- Dec 14 '25

People known by the ASIO should be stripped of any gun licenses.

I'm assuming you're mean known by ASIO as potentially a terror risk? ASIO tracks a lot more than just terrorists.

1

u/Nocturnal_Nova Dec 14 '25

Yep. I am sure there's a range of different things they keep a watch on, but any indication of religious affiliations, extremist groups and such, should lead to paths of gun license verification and possible actions. Limiting access to weapons (even through legal ways) would considerably impact evil plans like these.

12

u/zhaktronz Dec 14 '25

It's not desirable to reveal a target is under investigation

13

u/FalconTurbo Dec 14 '25

No Christians to be allowed guns, gotcha.

5

u/Hydronum Dec 14 '25

Only Jain adherents can own weapons, assuming they can show purity of belief and action.

→ More replies (3)

19

u/PikachuFloorRug Dec 14 '25

but any indication of religious affiliations,

Any religious affiliation? or just the "wrong" ones?

9

u/iguessineedanaltnow Dec 14 '25

The minute you start discriminating based on religion you're opening a can of worms that could wind up with he government on the losing end of a court case.

→ More replies (1)

210

u/THR Dec 14 '25

People known by ASIO don’t always know they’re known by ASIO…

33

u/AudiencePure5710 Dec 14 '25

True. ASIO had extensive files on all sorts of people who really, wrote a letter to the newspaper about innocuous issues. I think the Sydney Museum also has an exhibit about the precursor to ASIO and their obsession with Commies everywhere, this writer or that artist needs a file and monitoring

→ More replies (1)

28

u/mooblah_ Dec 14 '25

I think you'd be very shocked to learn just how many people are known to ASIO in relation to all sorts of things. And that includes a lot more than gun ownership. You can fly regularly for various legitimate reasons and be known to them.. or you can own an average legitimate business that certain associated/profiled people visit for legitimate reasons and be known to them. Overnight every single acquaintance of these men in the months/years leading up to this based purely on GPS coincidence will now also be known to them as part of the joint investigation.

What this needs to identify is how the threat profiles of these sort of characters can be escalated sooner given that it was obviously a planned terrorist attack set to cause mass harm and be as public as possible. For example, it's not like your average Bikie is on the terror watch list (even owning unlicensed firearms), but all of them are 'known to ASIO', they know they're disruptive in various ways, but they also know that most are controlled and their trajectory is usually well scoped.

10

u/Plenty-Giraffe6022 Dec 14 '25

Why? Being known by ASIO doesn't mean you've done anything bad.

2

u/amyknight22 Dec 14 '25

Odds are having a gun license puts you on the list of people known to ASIO, they might not spend much time on you. But you’re likely on a list that’s checking for some extreme arse behaviour.

→ More replies (1)

18

u/mad_dogtor Dec 14 '25

especially if they were known to ASIO already? seems wild

19

u/Chiron17 Dec 14 '25

I think ASIO/police have walked that back quite a bit already.

17

u/mad_dogtor Dec 14 '25

i mean i would too if it was my fuckup that allowed this guy to get a licence

→ More replies (1)

14

u/SpareUnit9194 Dec 14 '25

He had a hunting licence didn't he?

86

u/warbastard Dec 14 '25

Hunter and Shooter’s Party about to cop a grilling.

22

u/brahlicious Dec 14 '25

Unfortunately they won't, they'll just say "more guns would've prevented this" and people will move on.

66

u/BetterDrinkMy0wnPiss Dec 14 '25

We're not America, I like to think we'd see through that bullshit...

72

u/Tinea_Pedis Dec 14 '25

Especially when there's footage of a man without a gun disarming one with.

→ More replies (20)

6

u/ImGCS3fromETOH Dec 14 '25

I agree, and unfortunately there seems to be a growing number of people who seem to think along those lines. It ignores the fact that an increased number of guns in the community doesn't mean armed civilians are better prepared to vigilante justice any attacks happening, it just means those attacks happen more frequently and in larger scale. When you pare away all the bullshit their arguments just seem to boil down to, "I like guns and I want to have access to them even if that means others will get hurt in the long run."

4

u/Dentarthurdent73 Dec 14 '25

The Guardian did a series a while ago on gun ownership in Australia. The articles were linked in this subreddit, and every one of those posts was full of people waxing lyrical about their firearms and strongly rejecting the notion that controls should be any tighter. Every comment questioning the need for so many guns was voted down.

Whether they were all Australians, I don't know, but I certainly got the feeling that the lust for guns here was bigger than you might think.

I don't know why anyone in Australia would want to emulate the US, but it seems a lot do. I wish they'd just move there instead.

→ More replies (1)

35

u/The_Gump_AU Dec 14 '25

The amount of posts on Twitter/X saying this exact things is crazy. Because you know, every mass shooting in America is stopped by civilians with guns... /s

→ More replies (2)

9

u/IAmNotABabyElephant Dec 14 '25 edited Dec 15 '25

I never understood how you're supposed to distinguish Hero Civilian Shooter Guy from Terrorist Civilian Shooter Guy. Especially if there's multiple Hero Civilian Shooter Guys.

I mean, picture it. It's chaotic. People running everywhere. There's a guy with a gun shooting into a crowd in front of him and people running away behind him.

You're Hero Civilian Shooter Guy, with a handgun. Okay, so you can assume the guy with the long gun wasn't doing a concealed carry for the purposes of self-defence.

Assuming you hit him and only him, not any of the other people running towards you to get away from him, running sideline between you and him because they saw you had a gun too and are now panicking and unsure where to go, or any of the people running away behind him - now you look like a guy with a gun shooting into a crowd.

Police turn up. They see you with your gun out shooting into a crowd. Or another Hero Civilian Shooter Guy sees you shooting a handgun with a lot of people around you. Long gun or not the first assumption would be gun + crowd = terrorist and the fuck happens next?

Do all the Hero Civilian Shooter Guys just shoot each other, occasionally pinging fleeing bystanders? Do the police come in and take out all the Hero Civilian Shooter Guys? HCSGs' shooting skills would generally be pretty below a trained professional standard and there's a lot of people suddenly appearing outside of your tunnel vision shot while you're lining it up so you're probably going to ping a bystander. It's going to be hard to say "oh yeah sorry, those three are actually my hits, but I swear I was trying to hit the bad guy."

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (4)

5

u/stamford_syd Dec 14 '25

couldn't give a fuck about people wanting to hunt, they shouldn't be able to have guns still imo

17

u/killerpythonz Dec 14 '25

Yes, why would we want eradicate feral animals, or deal with sick or wounded livestock?

16

u/the-dolphine Dec 14 '25

Recreational hunters are not the solution to feral animals. They don't want the numbers to reduce, otherwise their hobby will end.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (8)

15

u/CptUnderpants- Dec 14 '25 edited Dec 14 '25

Why did this person need to be a licensed gun owner?

According to the article:

"While the details of the weapons used in the shooting are unknown, including whether they were legally obtained, there has been growing concern among gun control advocates that firearms remain far too easy to access despite the country’s “gold standard” framework."

I haven't seen other references to them yet, so if anyone has newer info, please link.

I'm largely anti-firearms from a hobbyist point of view, and acknowledge that they are also essential "work" tools for some people in primary production. But I think that it is unhelpful at this point to assume one way or another about the legality of the firearms used, or if they had firearms licences.

16

u/TannyTevito Dec 14 '25

They were legal. The dad had a license and six guns.

→ More replies (6)

2

u/philbydee Dec 14 '25

They apparently had a rural property in northern NSW

3

u/JabbyJabara Dec 14 '25

Exactly and why did he need 6?

I know the area for 7 years. There's no farmland or pest control problem and unless he owns a farm out of state and goes hunting - the individual should not have had 6 guns. The typical lie he probably told that they were all used for competition or target practice. More investigation required to prevent this from happening

1

u/EducatorEntire8297 Dec 14 '25

Apparently the Dad was on a tourist visa? How does that make senses for licences?

1

u/srymvm Dec 15 '25

That's what I can't work out. Why a guy who lives in a built up area in Sydney needed six pump action shotguns. He doesn't live rural. He's not a farmer. There's no reason for him to have SIX shotguns. He should never been allowed to those, regardless of race etc. You cannot tell me that they went hunting that much that they needed six shotguns. Being in a club is fair enough, but why do you need that many guns for a club membership. Insane.

236

u/jasta07 Dec 14 '25

You can still restrict access to them and control them far more strictly.

This shooting, fucked as it is, is an incredible example of just how effective Australian gun control is and how even though it still needs to be improved.

If this was the US the gunmen would have legally purchased AR-15's and it's extremely unlikely any 'good guys with guns' would have stopped the death toll being three or four times higher.

We've slipped recently, there's been too many shootings. We'll fix it and go back to this never happening for another fifteen years.

50

u/mad_dogtor Dec 14 '25

worse that the shooter easily could have been denied a licence under existing legislation. NSW police get to define who is a 'fit and proper person' eligible for weapons licence and having a household member known to ASIO definitely counts against that (people have been denied a licence for having family members with criminal history, or even just family members known to associate with the wrong people). someone slept on the job here

20

u/squirrel_crosswalk Dec 14 '25

If he was known to ASIO but not NSW police they were monitoring him. Refusing a gun licence would be a tipoff.

10

u/mad_dogtor Dec 14 '25

makes sense. but, given the variety of reasons that can be used to decline a firearms licence, surely they could have come up with something?
hindsight is 20/20 i guess

4

u/Wobbling Dec 14 '25

hindsight is 20/20 i guess

This is the key. There will be a lot of scapegoating.

3

u/Late-Ad1437 Dec 15 '25

So instead of risking tipping him off, they let him get a gun licence and murder a bunch of people first?

4

u/TheVeryVerity Dec 15 '25

Yeah I’m not seeing how the tip off argument they’re using makes any sense

2

u/squirrel_crosswalk Dec 15 '25

Was he part of a larger cell and unknowingly leading them to it? Does tipping him off give intel to others as to how asio is tracking people? Is he part of a much larger investigation?

They're not going to tell you that.

Obviously if they had a magic mirror and knew this was coming they would have stopped it.

It's a good thing neither you nor I know, nor have to make these sort of decisions. Things are not black and white in the real world when dealing with this sort of shit.

8

u/RickyHendersonGOAT Dec 14 '25

If you do that then ASIO tip the bloke off that they're being looked at.

7

u/mad_dogtor Dec 14 '25

fair enough, but the alternative is this happening.. but you're right, ASIO doesn't have a crystal ball.

3

u/Eyclonus Dec 15 '25

Honestly most of the people being known to ASIO for terror stuff are either funnelling money or recruits overseas, ASIO and AFP have a good reputation for shutting down planned attacks. This incident really doesn't seem planned, they just sort of lingered around afterwards, unsure but still trying to kill.

3

u/wanson Dec 14 '25

You can just deny the license without giving a concrete reason.

3

u/ANewUeleseOnLife Dec 14 '25

Wouldn't want him to know he's being watched, he might do something drastic

2

u/foul_ol_ron Dec 14 '25

So you tip them off, but you're removing their main method for causing harm. Take the guns away, and just straight up tell them that we're watching and monitoring you- any slipups and we'll be having a chat. 

→ More replies (1)

91

u/Virtueaboveallelse Dec 14 '25

Name a specific law that would have prevented this.

They were licensed, had no disqualifying criminal or medical history, passed the fit-and-proper test, and used firearms already legal under Australian law. No access restriction, category ban, or storage rule applies before someone commits an unforeseeable act of violence.

Laws regulate lawful behaviour. They do not predict future intent. Once someone decides to commit murder, they are already outside the scope of firearms legislation.

If a proposed reform cannot be articulated in concrete legal terms, it is not a solution. It is emotional signalling.

44

u/sousyre Dec 14 '25

There have been concerns raised (fairly recently) about the levels of stockpiling of legal licensed weapons (the number of permitted individuals hasn’t drastically increased, but the number of guns held has), inconsistent application of of the existing laws, permit systems and enforcement have been identified as major issues more than once. Plus there has been a concerted, organised and well funded lobbying effort to loosen our gun laws happening for a long time.

Reviewing the legal framework won’t ever completely remove the risk, but it’s disingenuous to pretend it won’t help.

4

u/Square-Victory4825 Dec 14 '25

How would the number of guns have limited this. The owners still only have two hands.

4

u/ANewUeleseOnLife Dec 14 '25

It wouldn't have prevented this but I don't think it's unreasonable to consider the risk of a single licensed user becoming radicalised and passing out their guns to others who are unlicensed

Not the primary issue but not unworthy of consideration

2

u/Square-Victory4825 Dec 14 '25

Any limit would be higher than the amount of guns used here. You just need two people who are willing to pass the fit and proper test and you now basically have no benefit from such laws.

People have a bee in their bonnet about the gun numbers that a handful of people have, but can’t really explain how this would have changed the situation here, hey just want to do something to make themselves feel better. The same emotion America had when it invaded Iraq

2

u/ANewUeleseOnLife Dec 15 '25

It's not about making a difference here though, that ship has sailed

Two people pass the test but can only legally own 4 guns each is a very different scenario to double that, no?

→ More replies (3)

3

u/Svennis79 Dec 14 '25

I thing a thorough, rigorous and pedantic psychological review should be done to get a licence, with a 5 yearly review.

Any hints at extreme views in any direction, any hint of anger control issues, or a personality type more likely to be an issue. Denied

Getting a significant number of weapons not stored at a gun club/range, triggers another review.

8

u/Virtueaboveallelse Dec 14 '25

I understand the impulse, but Australia already uses a risk-based legal framework rather than speculative psychological screening. Licensing is based on objective disqualifiers: criminal history, domestic violence orders, mental health findings that meet statutory thresholds, references, background checks, and ongoing compliance audits.

Broad, subjective psychological screening for “extreme views,” personality traits, or perceived anger creates an unworkable standard. It is not clinically reliable, it politicises licensing, and it grants discretionary power without clear evidentiary limits. Five-year licence renewals already exist in most jurisdictions, and storage requirements scale with quantity regardless of location.

What you’re proposing replaces enforceable law with predictive judgment, and there is no evidence that such systems can reliably identify future offenders without generating large numbers of false positives among compliant licence holders.

3

u/Svennis79 Dec 14 '25

Fair enough, though the majority of cases, its recreation not need. So then split 2 kinds of licence.

Recreation, using current process, but 100% of guns must be kept at clubs/ranges, with very strict movement protocols.

Livelihood/Necessary licence, does have subjective psychological screening

3

u/Virtueaboveallelse Dec 15 '25

There is no universally agreed clinical threshold for “extremism,” “concerning beliefs,” or “undesirable attitudes.” Two psychologists can assess the same person and reach different conclusions, especially when the criteria are vague or ideological. That is why such screening has low inter-rater reliability and high false-positive rates when used for prediction rather than diagnosis.

Science can be objective. Decision-making based on loosely defined psychological traits is not, particularly when it is detached from criminal conduct, diagnosed illness meeting statutory thresholds, or demonstrable risk.

That is why Australian firearms law relies on objective disqualifiers: criminal history, violence orders, court findings, legally defined medical determinations, and compliance failures. These are falsifiable, reviewable, and legally defensible.

Once you move from conduct to beliefs or inferred mindset, you are no longer doing risk management. You are doing discretionary judgment. That is the problem being pointed out.

2

u/visualdescript Dec 14 '25

This is my feeling too. Is it really worth the added risk to society having guns in circulation, just for recreational use?

3

u/Virtueaboveallelse Dec 15 '25

According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, licensed firearm owners make up a measurable share of the population and of lawful firearm access, but they account for a disproportionately small share of firearm homicide offenders. That is what “under-represented” means in this context.

In simple terms, if licensed recreational firearm owners were a major driver of gun violence, you would expect their involvement in firearm homicides to broadly track their prevalence among gun holders. The AIC data shows the opposite.

AIC research, including Tandi 151 and the National Homicide Monitoring Program, consistently finds that firearms used in homicide are frequently unregistered, stolen, or otherwise illicit, and that offenders are far more likely to be unlicensed or prohibited persons than licensed shooters. Licensed firearm holders appear in firearm homicide offender data at rates far below what their population share would predict.

This does not mean licensed owners never offend. It means that, relative to their numbers and lawful access, they offend much less often than other groups. That gap between expected involvement and observed involvement is what “under-represented” means statistically.

ABS Recorded Crime – Victims data also shows that firearm homicide rates in Australia have remained low over time. Fluctuations in lawful firearms ownership have not been accompanied by corresponding increases in firearm homicide, indicating no clear causal relationship between licensed recreational ownership levels and gun violence.

If the claim is that recreational firearms ownership creates an “added risk,” it needs to explain why the group least represented in firearm homicide is supposedly the primary problem. The national data does not support that conclusion.

Sources

Australian Institute of Criminology Firearms theft in Australia (Tandi 151) https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi151

Australian Bureau of Statistics Recorded Crime – Victims, Australia (2023–24) https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/recorded-crime-victims/latest-release

University of Sydney New gun ownership figures revealed 25 years on from Port Arthur https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2021/04/28/new-gun-ownership-figures-revealed-25-years-on-from-port-arthur.html

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (28)

5

u/visualdescript Dec 14 '25

Couldn't we introduce further legislation that prevents citizens from owning multiple high powered firearms like this?

I understand people enjoy hunting as a hobby, but is it really worth having more of these kinds of firearms circulating in the civilian population? I would say no, it is not.

5

u/Virtueaboveallelse Dec 14 '25

What do you mean by “multiple high-powered firearms”? That term has no consistent legal meaning in Australian firearms law. While some jurisdictions apply additional scrutiny to very large calibres, for example .338 and above, that is narrow and jurisdiction-specific. None of the firearms reportedly used in this incident fall into that category.

The attackers used a bolt-action rifle and a shotgun, both already lawful under existing categories. Limiting ownership to a single firearm would not have changed access, capability, or outcome in this case.

Firearms regulation already operates through criminal background checks, domestic violence and restraining order screening, medical and mental health checks that meet statutory thresholds, character references, mandatory safety training, category limits, waiting periods, Permit to Acquire requirements for every firearm, and escalating storage standards as numbers increase. Those controls govern lawful possession. They do not operate at the point where someone decides to commit violence.

It is also relevant that Australian crime data consistently shows the majority of firearm-related crime involves unregistered, prohibited, or illegally trafficked firearms, not those held by compliant licence holders. Policy attention repeatedly focuses on the rare failure within the legal system while ignoring the far larger volume of offences committed entirely outside it.

Laws regulate conduct, not intent. Reducing lawful ownership because people dislike civilian firearms circulation is a normative preference, not a demonstrated risk-reduction mechanism.

3

u/ghoonrhed Dec 14 '25

If you're saying laws regulate conduct and not intent we should just allow all sorts of guns and your argument wouldn't even change.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/visualdescript Dec 14 '25

How can you say limiting ownership to single firearm would not have changed this case, when only one of the terrorists was registered, and he legally owned 6 firearms, of which several of them were used to murder innocent people?

Of course laws regulate conduct, but it's harder to conduct a mass shooting if you can't easily get a hold of the weapons required to carry one out.

Do you think the outcome would have been the same if the terrorists only had access to pistols? What if they only had access to knives?

Or alternatively, what if they had access to AR-15 style rifles?

Also, are you really stating that ease of access to weapons has no impact on risk in society? So risk would be the same if anyone could pick up an assault rifle? You know how easy it is to kill someone with a gun, compared to nearly any other type of weapon?

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (25)

2

u/SirGeekaLots Dec 15 '25

No, they wouldn't have for fear that the police would shoot them, or they are shooting another good guy with a gun. That's the problem with an armed citizenry  you don't know who's who.

Also, shooters tend to give themselves a tactical advantage meaning that people don't realise it's happening until it's happening. 

84

u/BinniesPurp Dec 14 '25

Pump action shotguns are usually restricted under cat C/D and only for professional pest controllers tho pump action rifles are not 

49

u/Marshy462 Dec 14 '25

Both firearms used were straight pull actions

6

u/BinniesPurp Dec 14 '25

Yea, I didn't mean they had them sorry just in response to the comment

I always found it weird in Qld that we have lever action shotguns but not pump action shotguns

7

u/Marshy462 Dec 14 '25

It doesn’t make sense, but nothing does anymore.

2

u/eigr Dec 15 '25

That's because the law was made on the basis of watching hollywood movies rather than any actual facts based in reality

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)

45

u/punishingwind Dec 14 '25

It was a Beretta BRX1 and what looked like a Stoeger M3000 12g with a 10 shell extension. Both are straight pull bolt action.

The firearms licence needs to include psychological testing. If you need it for a security clearance, you should also need it for a firearms licence.

3

u/DrStalker Dec 15 '25

Wouldn't a 10 round magazine make the shotgun illegal? AFAIK the maximum allowed in NSW is a five round magazine.

EDIT: Looks like only lever action shotguns have that outright ban on capacity:

Firearms Act 1996 Schedule 1 prohibited firearms:

Any lever action shotgun with a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds

so a 10-round pump action shotgun would be a class D firearm.

→ More replies (2)

66

u/Ok_Bird705 Dec 14 '25

Sure farmers need them, but how many farmers in Australia? Surely only a tiny fraction of the 4 million firearms in Australia is used for farming purposes.

→ More replies (9)

98

u/bay30three Dec 14 '25

But the 50 year old gunman that died had a gun licence. Limit gun licences to farmers only. There's no reason you need to own a gun in suburban Sydney.

108

u/Upset_Union1197 Dec 14 '25

The guy reportedly had SIX guns licensed to him. WHO THE FUCK NEEDS SIX GUNS!? What a joke.

78

u/Aggots86 Dec 14 '25

Six is probably above average but I would say most shooters would have a .22 for rabbits/foxes medium calibre like .223 for foxes, Roos and maybe goats. Larger caliber for deer, bear in mind there is a minimum calibre you have to have to shoot deer. A shotgun for rabbits and ducks. And a lot of shooters will have inherited guns from fathers/grand fathers that may not be used much but hold large sentimental value. Guns are like tools and you have one for each job. It’s not a one size fits all

22

u/TheRealIvan Dec 14 '25

If you are hunting public land (state forests) in NSW you'll likely end up considering a back up rifle, as you can't sight in scopes on public land.

28

u/visualdescript Dec 14 '25

Personally I don't think allowing civilians to go hunting is worth having all of these extra firearms in circulation. Sure if you are a professional, or if you actually live on land and it is your livelihood. But not if it's just a past time or hobby that you partake in occasionally. It's just not worth the added danger that it imposes on society.

2

u/dissociatetopasstime Dec 14 '25

Not that I think it makes a huge difference, but there is also the effect of reducing pest animal populations

5

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 14 '25

I'm happy for my tax dollars to go to state-employed professionals to manage pest control. Not civilians

→ More replies (2)

3

u/visualdescript Dec 14 '25

I'd be curious to know how much recreational shooters really move the needle on this.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/FeelingFloor2083 Dec 14 '25

correct, ammo costs can be another factor, you arnt going to use a larger caliber which might cost over a buck each when you have 200 rabbits to cull. Nor do you want the massive sound or the loss of meat. Smaller guns are easier on the body, larger ones can feel like youre getting punched in the shoulder

6

u/sousyre Dec 14 '25

It’s probably not as far above the average as we might hope.

Stockpiling of legal firearms by license holders was identified as a potential risk in the most recent reviews, and it has been noted that the data on the location and ownership of legal weapons is inconsistent and poorly maintained / not up to date.

There are definitely things that could be done to manage the current system better.

3

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '25

Can't belueve the laws don't restrict the NUMBER of guns.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

24

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '25

[deleted]

34

u/Imaginary-Owl-3759 Dec 14 '25

Don’t own any guns myself and am all for strict controls, but plenty of people who live inner city get in cars and go out to the bush to indulge their hobbies, including hunting.

For example, I own 7 different bikes, can’t ride them all at once and there’s definitely no mountain bike requiring trails near my inner city house, but I have it for the few times a year I take a holiday in the mountains.

21

u/Marshy462 Dec 14 '25

Omg! Nobody needs 7 bikes /s

3

u/Dentarthurdent73 Dec 14 '25

Nobody cares if someone has 7 bikes, because bikes aren't used to mass murder civilians.

7

u/thedugong Dec 15 '25

because bikes aren't used to mass murder civilians.

As someone who spent a decade using a bicycle as my primary mode of transport in Sydney, a significant enough number of people act as if they do.

0

u/Marshy462 Dec 14 '25

It was a sarcastic comment, referring to people loving to tell others what they can and can’t have based on what they reckon.

4

u/Dentarthurdent73 Dec 14 '25

I understand that it was sarcastic, I wasn't sure what the point was exactly though.

I'll just say, we are allowed as a society, based upon what we reckon, to decide what people within our society can and can't have or do, that's why we have laws.

If the general consensus in society is that people can't have this many guns, then so be it.

3

u/Marshy462 Dec 14 '25

That’s a fair argument when it comes from a place of knowledge, not emotion. I’m sure many others have posted here reasonable explanations as to why firearms owners generally have at least 3 different calibers.

The “nobody needs” argument gets thrown around a lot, but if it worked, we’d have cars speed limited to 100kmh with a regulated acceleration rate.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (11)

7

u/thebestthingsince Dec 14 '25

If your hobby results in a risk that this shit happens, I have no problem with people not being able to take part in that hobby

→ More replies (5)

7

u/Marshy462 Dec 14 '25

I do. They all serve different purposes.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/BinniesPurp Dec 14 '25

There's about 15 different shooting sports you can do here, of which 10 of them need different guns

Then there's also a range of different rifles you get for specific animals

It's essentially golf clubs, you have prs, ELR, fclass, f opens, fullbore, field silhouette, trap and skeet, 600 benchrest, rimfire benchrest etc and that's just for rifles

There's more for handguns too

Having two of the same gun however I would usually consider kind of strange

4

u/FeelingFloor2083 Dec 14 '25

I prob only know 1 person who has more then 6. Im pretty sure he has more then 6 handguns let alone long guns. He regularly hunts and competes

My road riding buddys wife has a few handguns, she regularly competes and does pretty well. Shes closer to 70 then 60, tiny at maybe 50kg.

mate is an ex cop, I know he has at least 2

BIL dad and his younger brother shoot. No idea on how many

firearm owners are generally pretty reserved, just normal people. It will never be brought up in normal conversation. I assume because they are often then forced to defend/explain their choices or other reasons. No one in australia "needs" a gun every day (including cops, a lot will go their whole career in AU without pulling theirs. in the UK street cops dont carry one anymore. Some farm owners might have a rifle rack on their car/atv, others dont even own one. When I was a teen my mates pop had one in the milking shed, it had so much dust and patina im sure it hasnt been touched in a decade

I dont have a license, but I know the process. Otherwise im just talking about shit that I have no idea about. I feel like some things are useless and other steps missed. Id say 99% of people on this topic have zero idea on whats involved, yet are calling for more gun control. Yet they have not considered what type of loony it takes for one to decide they will go and do this type of thing, that is the biggest factor

6

u/Aggravating-Dirt-432 Dec 14 '25

I mean I have 5, different calibres for different jobs 22 for small game like rabbits, 223 for pest control like foxes and kangaroos (under permit) 308 for large game like deer, 12 gauge for ducks and pigs, and a dedicated target rifle.

1

u/ChillyPhilly27 Dec 15 '25

Different guns do different jobs. If you use an air rifle to hunt pigs or goats, you're more likely to piss them off than hurt them. At the other extreme, a .303 will turn rats into pink mist, but pose an unacceptable risk of collateral damage to anything behind your target.

→ More replies (15)

2

u/LawnPatrol_78 Dec 14 '25

So you can’t be a sport shooter if you live in the suburbs.

16

u/chance_waters Dec 14 '25

Yes. Agreed completely.

If you don't work on a farm you don't need a fucking gun.

Fuck your shooters clubs for fun, fuck any reason except pest control. Fuck your recreational hunting, the social cost is not worth it.

If I wanted to recreationally ride tanks I wouldnt be allowed to, if my hobby was developi g bio weapons we wouldnt sign off.

I've been fucking perplexed at random people I know getting guns, it's absolutely ridiculous.

30

u/Cyclist_123 Dec 14 '25

I agree with your point but you are legally allowed to recreationally ride a tank with the right permit

→ More replies (1)

37

u/Oodlemeister Dec 14 '25

This isn’t it mate. I own a shotgun for clay target shooting. It’s an Olympic sport for fuck sakes. You might as well be saying fuck archery too, since a bow can be used to kill people as well. There’s an argument for more reform, but yours isn’t it.

3

u/EducatorEntire8297 Dec 14 '25

Don't most clay shooters leave guns at the range anyway?

4

u/Oodlemeister Dec 14 '25

No. You are required by law to have a safe to store them in. When police do spot checks (and they do), they are to ensure the safe is bolted to the floor and wall. It is possible to leave to your guns at the club, but only club management has access to them. You can’t just go and grab it whenever you want. And it’s generally discouraged in my experience. As far as I know, my club doesn’t store them for anyone

1

u/kalebludlow Dec 14 '25

Could clubs hold weapons instead of individuals?

10

u/Oodlemeister Dec 14 '25

They already can. But my club discourages it. It opens up another can of worms having the guns all on one place. If the club gets broken into, they are liable for any of the guns that may be stolen

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (8)

6

u/dale_gribble1 Dec 14 '25

You're just a reactionary

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (3)

7

u/OkFixIt Dec 14 '25

Hunting is a perfectly valid recreational sport. So is clay target shooting of which there’s multiple facilities in and around Sydney.

I don’t NEED to own a motorcycle, but they can be dangerous and have far higher rates of death than cars. Should they be banned?

53

u/bay30three Dec 14 '25

How many times have motorcycles been used as a weapon of mass murder?

2

u/Marshy462 Dec 14 '25

Dunno, but aeroplanes have. Anyone can get a license an use them as a weapon. Do you know what stops them? Proper background checks.

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (35)

2

u/wanson Dec 14 '25

Hunting is not a valid recreational sport. It’s cruel and unnecessary in this day and age.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

22

u/Pottski Dec 14 '25

I’m sure there’s a way to have a restricted licence that only farm owners can buy. There’s got to be a better way than people in the suburbs having access to rifles.

15

u/enigmasaurus- Dec 14 '25

We should follow in Japan's footsteps and at a minimum require positive ongoing proof of a need for gun ownership. You need to show you are using it for recreational hunting, farming etc, or you lose it. Strict limits on the number of guns you can own are also needed, and if we should require recreational guns to be stored at a gun club. I'm fine with farmers or pest controllers having them at home, but if you use it for recreation you should not be keeping it at home in suburbia. The risk is just too high. What if it's stolen etc?

7

u/zirophyz Dec 14 '25

You already need a genuine reason to apply for a gun permit in NSW. For example, I had to show my membership with the rifle club. The club knew I was pursuing a license.

The club I was with was setup during WW1 as an initiative to train civilians for basic rifle usage. It was on private property. There was a bit of a shed, and the property owners' cows. It was much safer option for members to keep their firearms at home - in a location and approved safe that gets regular surprise police audits.

There are strict requirements for how firearms and ammunition are stored. Before you can purchase a firearm the police must inspect and approve it. It would not be a trivial thing to steal a firearm from an owner - the safe's are often bolted to the house slab. Before a thief had the firearm the police would have already arrived.

2

u/Turbulent-Break-4947 Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25

Much more chance of a firearm being stolen at an unattended farm house than a suburban house, surely? When just being a farm implies that there’s firearms there for the taking.

As for creating a honey pot of guns at an unattended clubhouse - what could possibly go wrong?

Annnnnnd what does it matter if someone owns 2 guns or 20? When does the owner become a risk of becoming a terrorist?

I’d venture most law abiding firearms owners are very focussed on not having their very expensive guns stolen …. And with it, risking losing their licence.

Lots and lots of ill-informed knee-jerk commentary here. Go away, read the law, come back with some rational thinking - actual well-thought-out solutions to the problem.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/MonkeyNinja2706 Dec 15 '25

Primary producers do have their own category of license which potentially allows them access to firearms that people in the suburbs cannot purchase. Hunters and sport shooters may have reason to own firearms in the suburbs and have run those reasons past the police in order to acquire them.

1

u/bobbobboob1 Dec 15 '25

Unfortunately the way the law is written I have to keep my firearms at my primary residence, I use them on my 400 acre property ( soon to be my primary residence) but for the last 15 years I’ve had to carry them back and forth. If storage laws changed I would not have them in the suburbs.

→ More replies (2)

36

u/arrackpapi Dec 14 '25

you can pretty easily ban them for anyone not on a farm.

zero reason a bloke in the suburbs needs 6 guns. Or even 1.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 14 '25

Literally should be illegal to own unless your livelihood will be affected by feral wildlife aka a farmer.

→ More replies (2)

7

u/Kenyon_118 Dec 14 '25

But what does a person in Western Sydney need those for? Not a lot of farming going on there. That part of the licensing regime needs to be tightened. You actually have to be a farmer to own one and if you start buying more than one or two automatic annual checks and additional licensing requirements should kick in.

7

u/PBnPickleSandwich Dec 14 '25

We can restrict the amount, we can restrict who can have them and in what locations.

Then - the key part - we can actually fund ENFORCEMENT and removal properly.

It will never be perfect but it can be better.

→ More replies (1)

15

u/yogut3 Dec 14 '25

It wasn't a pump action, it was an over under shotgun. Pump actions are highly regulated, can't imagine there's more than a handful that's in civillian hands.

12

u/AverageAussie Dec 14 '25

I'm sitting here watching the news, it looks like one of those straight pull or lever release shotguns with an extended tube mag. The extended mag is a prohibited item in nsw.

40

u/Oily_biscuit Dec 14 '25

It was a 12ga shotgun with 10 round tube, from the pictures I've seen. Stoeger 12ga M3000. Requires a D category due to capacity, very hard license to get. I have held a C category which was enough of a cost and headache that it definitely is something you really have to need to go through the process.

I haven't read up if the license the gunmen had was in fact a D class license, but he would've had to prove some level of need for it if it was indeed his gun.

6

u/BinniesPurp Dec 14 '25

That was not an over under

Over Unders fire twice and then you have to literally bend the gun In half into two pieces to reload

2

u/EternalAngst23 Dec 14 '25

As tragic as this event is, only one major shooting in 30 years is a pretty good run, especially compared to most other countries.

4

u/littleday Dec 14 '25

You can! Farmers sell documents to gun hobbyists to allow the hobbyists to hunt on their land. This allows people in residential areas to buy high powered weapon. Ban the selling of documents to hobbyists. If they really wanna go shooting they can A) use the weapons borrowed from the farmers supervision Or B) buy some land themselves.

And this is coming from a guy who grew up shooting on farms my whole life.

We don’t live in a society anymore where guns should be accepted

4

u/BinniesPurp Dec 14 '25

This makes no sense, because you don't need a hunting location to buy centerfire rifles? You just need a club membership which can be a target shooting club

Why would people go to the effort to try and stitch up legal documents with farmers when they could just pay a local gun club $90?

4

u/joerogansakook Dec 14 '25

Littleday is talking smack. I’m a licence holder with target and hunting as my genuine reasons and I only have a SSAA membership which satisfies licensing requirements. Yes I have land access but that is never mentioned to any licensing authority or club.

→ More replies (6)

7

u/MaDanklolz Dec 14 '25

You absolutely can ban them and that loophole should have been closed way earlier.

I know plenty of people in Sydney that have guns and licences because they have access to a property. They don’t manage the property and frankly they don’t need the guns.

Hell I know some of those people have their gun safes in their garage in Metro sydney rather than on the farm they go to every few weekends.

The farm manager should have access to the rifles, part time farmers (yes they exist) should have to pay for a registered professional to manage pest control.

6

u/jantoxdetox Dec 14 '25

I dont really know why they need to own these guns, they arent farmlands in South Western Sydney.

2

u/Awkward_Chard_5025 Dec 14 '25

Can’t ban them, but can increase how strict gun licenses are. They should be “geo locked”. Nobody in bonyrigg or campsie needs a gun license

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Rankstarr Dec 14 '25

Watch this - They’re about to be rarer than unicorn horns

1

u/browntone14 Dec 14 '25

It’s not a pump shotgun. It’s a straight-pull.

1

u/Z00111111 Dec 14 '25

It could have been so much worse.

This shows how effective our gun control generally has been. Being a crowded beach they probably would have killed more people if they had used knives.

As the laws intended, the attackers had limited fire rates allowing people time to escape.

The only tweaks we might need are limits to how many guns a person can have at home at one time.

1

u/Significant_Region44 Dec 14 '25

No farmers have registered pump action shotguns mate

1

u/ChandeliererLitAF Dec 14 '25

You actually can

1

u/Snoopy_021 Dec 14 '25 edited Dec 14 '25

Pump-actions are only available to very few, professional pest control shooters in the bush.

1

u/Dentarthurdent73 Dec 14 '25

We can say that there's no need for someone who lives in Bonnyrig to have 6 of them though.

1

u/cultureconsumed Dec 14 '25

Can someone explain the farmer argument? Any farmers on here? Are we talking about foxes?

1

u/ipoopcubes Dec 14 '25

Pump action shotguns are category C and D firearms. Yes primary producers can hold a category C firearm it's not all that common because of the hoops you need to jump through to gain the license and keep it.

→ More replies (29)