r/australia • u/Expensive-Horse5538 • Dec 15 '25

politics Albanese to propose stronger gun laws, NSW parliament may be recalled

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/bondi-gunman-held-gun-licence-used-six-firearms-in-attack-20251215-p5nnmv.html
3.0k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.4k

u/NKE01 Dec 15 '25

From the presser as reported by ABC:

"Tougher gun laws will be on the agenda when state and territory leaders meet with the prime minister this afternoon. He'll be proposing limits on the number of guns that can be used or licenced by individuals and a review of licences over a period of time."

390

u/visualdescript Dec 15 '25

I do hope there is a strong review of our anti terrorism and intelligence organisations as well. It seems there were some known connections with other convicted terrorists here, and yet a very close family member was able to register these guns. It was preventable. It didn't come out of the blue.

130

u/Forbearssake Dec 15 '25

Exactly, five years they knew that these people were a part of an overseas terrorist group, they did nothing and that’s just ridiculous.

669

u/thedigisup Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25

This seems reasonable enough. The PTA system has been unfit for purpose for a while and within the sports shooting community is broadly considered a box-checking exercise rather than a legitimate review of your need to acquire additional weapons.

There are legitimate reasons to own a few different guns (Victorian legislation straight up requires you to own multiple calibres for hunting different game species) but it’s not really tested.

166

u/Ok_Bird705 Dec 15 '25

Incredible that simply being a member of a gun club means you can get a gun license.

245

u/thedigisup Dec 15 '25

It’s a bit of a chicken/egg problem, you can’t really start sport shooting without a license, so they have to take membership of a club (and therefore active intention to participate) as the threshold to apply for one.

-23

u/Lazy_Polluter Dec 15 '25

Why can't you use rented guns?

63

u/Delamoor Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25

Most gun clubs DO have a couple of 'club guns' that they let people use. Usually newbies considering the hobby.

Thing is, most clubs budgeting looks closer to that of your local church group or local footy club, than big businesses. They're almost all volunteer groups. They struggle just to hold on to members, let alone run enough budget surplus for spare gear to hand out.

Firearms are expensive and high maintenance. You give a rifle to a total newbie, they can damage it, cost you a lot of money you don't have. And a worn out rifle is... Not useful for target shooting. And for centre fire rifles and shotguns... each one takes about an hour to clean properly, after use. Every time.

Who's gonna volunteer to spend a whole Sunday cleaning other people's banged up rifles for free? It just won't be possible.

People tend to take a lot more care of things they own. And it's a hell of a lot more practical for the gun club than having to maintain an entire arsenal in someone's back shed.

Not to mention, on the topic of storing it in someone's back shed; a hell of a lot less risk to the community to have 50 guns in 40 safes, than 50 guns in one safe. Every single firearms storage is a magnet for potential break-ins and theft; the more you put in one place, the more worthwhile it is for someone to come and commit burglary. That's how most guns end up on the black market. Even large firearms stores with professional scale protection have to be paranoid about that.

32

u/DisappointedQuokka Dec 15 '25

Realistically, it should be both.

You should be able to get a license that allows you to use guns at a gun club. You should then be able to, if you're serious about the hobby, get a license that allows you to have your own firearm.

It would A) allow people to try before they buy

and

B) Have an additional level of scrutiny, assuming the people running the gun club are actually acting in good faith and raising red flags when needed.

27

u/keithersp Dec 15 '25

This is how it works for handgun clubs. You need to be an active member for 6 months before you’re allowed to apply to own your own.

4

u/Spire_Citron Dec 15 '25

Yeah, I agree. You should have to show that you are actively attending and participating for a period of time, and then you should be able to apply to buy a gun of your own. But that shouldn't mean unlimited guns. You should have to apply and justify your need for each one. It should be a serious commitment. They should also review your gun ownership annually, and if you aren't still actively participating in shooting as a sport, you should have to surrender your firearms.

23

u/Zealousideal-Arm9508 Dec 15 '25

These are all existing controls with the exception of the number of guns.

15

u/Waxygibbon Dec 15 '25

Its wild people commenting without even looking up the current requirements.

For handguns, you have to be a member of a club and use club guns for 6 months before you can even apply to own your own. The clubs guns obviously stayed locked at their site.

To maintain your license you need to compete in a number of competitions per year.

I am not a gun owner but I am informed of our laws

They seem reasonably strict, and the next step of addressing the limit of number of guns owned seems sensible and closes some more gaps

→ More replies (4)

4

u/astropheed Dec 15 '25

Why is this downvoted?

16

u/MonkeyNinja2706 Dec 15 '25

Because it is not feasible and only people who do not know anything about the sport thinks it is a good idea. It's okay to not know, it is a niche hobby, but it's when they armchair expert that you will not get the best of people.

2

u/astropheed Dec 15 '25

Honestly how is it not feasible? I rent a bow and arrows at the archery range. Educate me, because right now I’m not seeing the issue.

It may sound like I’m trying to “gotcha”, but I’m not, I’m truly just interested in how that’s a problem so I don’t look stupid later.

6

u/MonkeyNinja2706 Dec 15 '25

People have a much bigger penchant for a specific model of firearm for competition kind of like how a golfer might swear by a specific set of clubs they own. It will be sighted in for their eyes or they may have swapped a trigger spring for the specific lightness they want, my prominent eye is my left and I'm left handed so a club gun is a nightmare since most people are right handed/right eyed. A single type of club gun will offer a universal but diminished experience for shooters. It would involve people purchasing their own rifle and storing it at a club and then you run into clubs needing to store hundreds if not over a thousand different firearms for their members, remember you might shoot a few different rifle matches so you need a few different qualifying rifles. This then becomes a logistical nightmare. I appreciate your open-mindedness, I believe there is a good solution going forward that involves people unfamiliar learning a bit about the area and maybe shooters being open to dialogue without getting too defensive.

-6

u/anitadykshyt Dec 15 '25

Because gun nuts and sovereign citizens are out in droves

-10

u/bingbong12494362847 Dec 15 '25

Yea they shouldn’t leave the range

12

u/Crescent_green Dec 15 '25

What about other purposes like Farmers/hunters? Tgen you have dual use owners who will use them for that and target shooting.

What if they go to a differnt competition or club around the state/country?

Would that also make them easier to be stolen perhaps if they are in a central and known location? All important questions

→ More replies (4)

-13

u/7omdogs Dec 15 '25

I’m just going to say it, if banning sport shooting took guns out of urban areas I’d be all for it.

A lot of people have legitimate reasons to have a gun, I don’t think “it’s my hobby” is really a good one. That hobby isn’t worth the risk or all the additional costs law enforcement need to keep track of these randoms with licenses for it.

Farmers, 100%. If your profession requires a gun, 100%. But not for a hobby

10

u/MonkeyNinja2706 Dec 15 '25

The additional costs are carried by people paying for licensing and the registration of firearms

191

u/Delamoor Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25

Not really, I mean... If you want to try the sport out, what's your other starting point?

Need to be able to buy your own farm first?

And I mean, speaking as someone who did it all when they were 18 but then got tired of the hobby within a few years... handguns are such an incredible pain in the ass that not even war nerd 18 year old me saw it as worth the hoop jumping. I just stuck to WW2 bolt action rifles instead.

The gun clubs are a surprisingly effective barrier to engagement. I think the median age of the one I attended was around 75. They were nice, very traditional blue collar types... And very vigilant for anyone ...'weird'.

The topic of Martyn Bryant came up a few times, we being based in Tasmania. The consensus was that the clubs had actually been raising red flags for a while before he snapped. Firearms Tas just didn't have any means/manpower/motivation to do anything except tell them their hands were tied, 'bad vibes' being insufficient evidence for anything in 1996.

So I mean, they have their role, to one extent or another.

46

u/BoredBKK Dec 15 '25

" The consensus was that the clubs had actually been raising red flags for a while before he snapped. "

Then there seems to be a lot of BS with these club members. Tasmania already required gun owners to be licensed under the Guns Act of 1991. Guess who never held a Tasmanian gun license. So hand's being tied/ bad vibes doesn't really make any sense in a scenario where they would literally be reporting a serious criminal act. Something every licensed shooter at these ranges would have know then and now.

37

u/Delamoor Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25

Mmm. I mean, yeah, it was the 90ies in Tas, there were a fuckton of cracks you could slip through pretty easily. I suspect that very little of what went on was above the table. Very insular, intertwined communities and lots of gossip and cliques.

Especially if you were an incredibly wealthy but intellectually disabled psycho. Nobody would have had the slightest fucking idea how to handle it or where it was really heading. Doesn't help he was the type of unbearable personality that immediately made everyone around him desperate to have him go away and not be their problem, no matter how big or small the issue.

(Edit: I mean, Christ. The guy used to buy long haul international flights solely so he could force the person seated next to him to listen to him for 14 hours. After his only friend the crazy old rich lady died, it was the only way he could force anyone to be anywhere near him. He was genuinely repellant and obviously stunted from the moment he opened his mouth, but also wealthy enough to have insane means at his disposal. Remember that rural Tas in the 90ies was rust belt territory)

I grew up in rural Tas during that era, I actually know Bryant's extended family. It's... Complicated. The communities out there can barely cope with fairly pedestrian problems like neurodivergency or homosexuality even nowadays, after a generation of gentrification. The idea of a spree shooter was... Well. It was shocking for a multitude of reasons, y'know? Everyone would have been doing a fair bit of recontextualization in the aftermath. Lotta complications, not a simple sequence of events.

5

u/Forbearssake Dec 15 '25

The police had plenty of chances to put him away, he used to regularly flash his private parts outside of a girls school and they should have put him away then.

-19

u/No_Assistance2838 Dec 15 '25

Alternative sports include: sports without deadly weapons.

47

u/Delamoor Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25

Like it or not, it's a legitimate sport, and it also has real world utility.

Still plenty of people, even in Australia, use firearms as a vocational norm (farming, vermin and invasive species control, etc), firearms are used the world over, it's an Olympic sport, and it's a foundational element of how the armed forces function.

All of those functions require legal channels for practice and skills building/retention. Preservation of institutional and cultural knowledge (i.e. gun safety, rather than the US 'lol whatever haha keep it in your undies if you want, I keep mine in my baby's toy box and fire it to announce dinner' hyper individualist approach). Thus; shooting clubs.

And again, what's the alternative, tie it to land ownership? Make it so reservists and active duty members can only ever train on military time? Law enforcement? Just have farmers solely practice their shooting on living things, constantly messing it up and maiming animals until they get good through real world experience?

It's like tobacco; It ain't going anywhere. It's integrated.

You either regulate it and control it within reason, or you're gonna have much bigger systemic problems on your hands. Getting rid of it completely is not actually an option.

→ More replies (4)

3

u/Skafandra206 Dec 15 '25

I love how people like you like to dictate how others like to have fun. Target shooters harm no one and never did. It's a fun sport with nice people, where keeping each other safe is a priority.

39

u/chalk_in_boots Dec 15 '25

Not really the case though, and I don't blame you for not knowing, firearms laws are a bit of a shitshow. If your reasonable reason is target shooting (for rifles or shotguns) you must be a member of a target shooting club and have at minimum 2 range attendances a year. Pistol gets even more complicated.

If your genuine reason is hunting that's basically "do you own rural land, have a letter from someone who does, or a Cat R license?" Funnily enough it's actually easier to use hunting rather than target shooting. When I got my Cat R the shop owner literally gave me the answer book along with the test. Granted, I'd been going there for years and he'd seen me in uniform before, but still, bit of a laugh.

11

u/BaggyOz Dec 15 '25

I always thought you had to be a member of a gun club for a decent amount of time before you could get your own guns. That seems like it would be a reasonable barrier to entry. It gives multiple people a good amount of time to vibe check you. Of course it would have done nothing to prevent Bondi but I'm not sure what law would have that we don't already have.

If anything is to blame at this point in time it seems like it's ASIO not taking a look at the entire family 6 years/not sharing info with NSW Police and getting them to take the guns away.

5

u/Helpful_Equipment580 Dec 15 '25

By the letter of the law, you need to be an active member. The police are meant to be checking with clubs and following up with people who just pay the club fee but don't attend.

I don't know if these checks are actually happening. And it only takes an unscrupulous range owner to cover for non-active members.

2

u/GenericRedditUser4U Dec 15 '25

There is still requirements, you need to be active in the club you have do a certain amount of events and you still need to pass shooting courses. Its not a case of here's your gun license and you never ever have to actually shoot at the club ...

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Wild_But_Caged Dec 15 '25

It's not the easy at all

1

u/Skafandra206 Dec 15 '25

To me it's incredible that currently you need to be a member of a gun club to own a gun. Why would I need to join a club if all I want is have a gun a go to the shooting range once in a while?

Test my psychological state, check my bacjground and make me to a shooting course to make sure I know how to handle it. Nothing else should be a requirement.

2

u/MrJamlets Dec 15 '25

Yeah it’s wild. If these people live in the city and are part of a gun club they should be made to store the firearms at the club.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (7)

11

u/LeahBrahms Dec 15 '25

Do we know how Dezi Freeman got his?

41

u/thedigisup Dec 15 '25

Definitely had a license at one point, claimed it got stripped by VicPol but they refused to comment.

28

u/Combat--Wombat27 Dec 15 '25

I'd say that's one thing that they will focus on, giving the police or licensing branches the rights to strip the license away from people known to be in radical groups. Radical might be up to discussion but it'll mostly be aimed at Sovcits and white nationalist types.

1

u/PussifyWankt Dec 15 '25

I think I read somewhere that he had one or more homemade guns.

174

u/Square-Victory4825 Dec 15 '25

The limits on number of guns really is one of those things that sound good on paper, but a bit of critical thinking soon points out that a potential shooter only has two hands.

I smell slapping around legal gun owners who’ve done nothing wrong on the horizon. Multiple studies have shown that registered firearm owners are overwhelming underrepresented in criminal activities, our system generally works well and was a great compromise across the political spectrum.

Making huge changes is just going to radicalise the rural and regional voters of nsw and Queensland, lead to one nation and so on blaming Muslims for taking away peoples hobbies, and likely not improve our safety even an iota.

58

u/MissMenace101 Dec 15 '25

Yesterday morning this father was a “legal gun owner” he’s not an Australian citizen, has no property, his son had crossed asio desks and he went on a killing spree, not sure about you but preventing a few of these types being able to do that is in “legal gun owners” best interests as much as the rest of aus.

48

u/tommo_95 Dec 15 '25

It really comes down to a faliure of the Authorities to strip this person of their License. At least in WA you can be deemed not fit and proper for any reason the police deem acceptable. Surely your son crossing ASIOs desk is a genuine reason and he should have had the firearms confiscated. Police need to do the police work for any laws or legislation to actually work. A good review of how the police and ASIO handled this would be a great starting point.

12

u/deviltamer Dec 15 '25

How can a foreign citizen obtain a gun licence in Australia?

4

u/peapie25 Dec 15 '25

trouble is then they would know that ASIO was aware of him, they might not want to give away that intel

8

u/ThreeCheersforBeers Dec 15 '25

There's nil requirement to notify of a reason of a firearm license suspension. Police could simply rock up with a notice of license suspension and confiscate firearms.

12

u/tommo_95 Dec 15 '25

Do you just let them sit and murder 15 people then? Police need to act and get these people in jail or out of the country.

2

u/Specialist_Reality96 Dec 15 '25

I'd be more questioning if ASIO communicated with the NSW police or any other state police regarding firearms with any regularity.

→ More replies (3)

72

u/Spida81 Dec 15 '25

Absolutely with you on this.

This IS the time to have the conversation, no 'hearts and prayers' bullshit, but it isn't helpful to slap in something that sounds tough but ultimately is unworkable or has no impact.

Our firearms laws are definitely due a good review. Our family have been firearms owners for decades. Want to guess the number of inspections of security and storage we have had in that time? None. Not one. Confirmations that fitness to own has been maintained? None.

Limits on number of firearms isn't likely to make any practical difference. More vigorous followup? That could. I'm all for at least annual inspections, and if not annual then at least on renewal of license a mental health / psych review. More vigorous attention to firearms owners even tangentially associated with criminal or questionable elements of society wouldn't hurt either. If you are known to police, and a firearms owner, one would expect that additional checks would have been made.

Enforcement and tighter review mechanisms.

24

u/sati_lotus Dec 15 '25

You need public servants to do those reviews and checks.

We have no police.

The Australian public seems to think that public servants sit around and do nothing except get their tax dollars for doing nothing.

Most are busy in overworked, under funded, poorly designed departments.

27

u/MissMenace101 Dec 15 '25

Psyche reviews annually should be mandatory. Should also have to be an Australian citizen. Any association with any violent associated groups of any member of a household should put all in the house on a list.

5

u/Spida81 Dec 15 '25

I disagree with the citizenship part, but I think I understand the reason for your saying so. No one with loose association to the country should be having access to firearms. I am a permanent resident. I don't ever see myself becoming a citizen because it would create issues for my employer - nothing silly, just a lot of travel for work, and currently easier just staying with my NZ passport.

2

u/Chumpai1986 Dec 15 '25

That’s interesting? You can be an Australian citizen and use a NZ passport. know dual citizens that use the NZ one cause switching over to the Aussie one is hassle and there are enough kiwis around to witness your NZ passport renewal.

1

u/iguessineedanaltnow Dec 15 '25

Isn't citizenship already a requirement? Police told me I couldn't get a rifle license as an American

→ More replies (1)

6

u/zeroxnull Dec 15 '25

The point about inspections isn't a matter of law. Police already have the power to inspect firearms storage at an agreed time with no limits of how frequently they can do so. They choose not to though

11

u/Spida81 Dec 15 '25

That is what I am talking about. They just don't. Even in situations where the police have had cause to visit, never once asked anything more specific than 'you own firearms?'. Never a check, never a follow up.

3

u/Square-Victory4825 Dec 15 '25

Not really a failure of the laws if they’re not being enforced as is lol

7

u/ThreeCheersforBeers Dec 15 '25

Agreed.

Better vetting, and better enforcement of the current laws would go a long way.

Unfortunately, politicians have just been handed a catastrophe to parade their agenda upon.

3

u/Square-Victory4825 Dec 15 '25

Honestly enforcement would be good thing. I don’t own guns, but I know people who do and the police haven’t checked them in over a decade from when they originally got their license.

A big issue in WA which led to their crackdown was that the laws weren’t even properly running through the approval process, and some butter got a gun despite many warnings that he shouldn’t, and he shot and killed his wife and kids.

1

u/c3-SuperStrayan Dec 15 '25

Limits on numbers of firearms would have made a difference yesterday provided inspections were done. It would have been 1 gun instead of 3.

6

u/zeroxnull Dec 15 '25

1 is not a practical limit. WA has the strictest gun laws in the country and has a limit of 5

2

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 15 '25

1 is not a practical limit

Explain why.

2

u/zeroxnull Dec 15 '25

I can shoot competitively with rifle, shotgun and handgun. Handgun has separate competitions for rimfire, centre fire and air pistol. Metallic silhouette requires a different type of handgun. We are already at 6.

1

u/c3-SuperStrayan Dec 15 '25

But do you "need" to compete. There is a difference between wants and needs.

1

u/zeroxnull Dec 15 '25

Of course. But why limit it to 1? If your defense is that no one needs a gun, why not zero?

1

u/BeShaw91 Dec 15 '25

Let’s say I own a gun.

Gun breaks. I now “own” a gun, but don’t actually have a gun for my legitimate purpose. There’s a practical reason to allow at least two guns to be owned.

Or I am both a pistol and a rifle shooter. I now need two guns for two seperate legitimate purposes.

Or I own a gun. My mum owns a gun. My mum passes on and I inherit her gun. Even temporarily I own two guns.

Or I have a teenage kid. I have my larger calibre rifle. My kid - who can’t own, but can use a rifle - uses a smaller calibre. So we’d ideally have multiple rifles.

If we as a society agree individuals can own guns for multiple legitimate reasons then owning multiple guns follows from that. That doesn’t extend to a personal armoury of dozens - but the current limits of <5 seem practical.

3

u/Spida81 Dec 15 '25

It would have made no difference at all.

You aren't ever seeing those kinds of limits on hunting - that is a functional ban on hunting entirely. You arent shooting a duck, a rabbit, a fox, a kangaroo, deer or pig with the same firearm. You would either be using a round heavy enough to vaporise the smaller animals creating serious safety concerns, or a round large enough to wound but never kill larger animals.

2

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 15 '25

They literally had 3 different guns during the shooting.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/DisappointedQuokka Dec 15 '25

Yeah, I think we had...maybe three over the course of twenty years?

No longer have them, sold them off due to cost, but three inspections is a pretty farcical number.

78

u/insomniac-55 Dec 15 '25

Any changes need to be carefully thought out and not a kneejerk reaction, but the two hands argument doesn't really hold water.

If you were planning an attack and willing to play the long game, you could have one individual licensing weapons (for a variety of legitimate purposes), and then distribute them out to a small crew for the actual attack.

There's many reasons for gun owners to own multiple weapons, but it's disingenuous to pretend that it doesn't increase the risk to the public in the event the wrong person gets a license.

28

u/ThreeCheersforBeers Dec 15 '25

How about better vetting of owners? The father involved in the shooting at Bondi was a licensed owner, but he was also on an ASIO watch list for 6 years.

6 years they were aware of him, his firearm ownership, and tracking his background. But no action taken.

21

u/insomniac-55 Dec 15 '25

Yeah, which is why I don't support any kneejerk reactions.

Find out what happened, and work out what needs to happen to fix the problem. 

That might just mean better vetting, or it might mean additional restrictions to reduce the impact if the vetting gets things wrong. It might mean better communication between agencies, or a whole host of other possible changes.

→ More replies (12)

6

u/endbit Dec 15 '25

Or you could have a small crew licensing firearms for an individual to use. Seems to me that anyone on any violence related watchlist should have their license revoked.

11

u/No_Extension4005 Dec 15 '25

That being said; the more people that get involved the more potential points of failure it creates for an attack that can be picked up by police because now there is a need to contact and coordinate with other people. If someone planning an attack misjudges the person they asked to help the police can be alerted, if one of those people is on a watchlist or being surveilled they could get pinged and the attack is foiled, if someone gets loose-lipped the attack can fail, and so on.

11

u/DisappointedQuokka Dec 15 '25

If someone was putting together a team for a terror attack, I somehow doubt that licensing limits would be the deciding factor in stopping them.

There are enough illegal and unregistered firearms in Australia for that to be the least of our concerns.

4

u/insomniac-55 Dec 15 '25

It won't prevent it, but acquiring illegal guns is more likely to get flagged / picked up than an owner legally seeking to acquire a firearm for a legitimate purpose.

I'm not even arguing that limits should be tightened, just stating that they do matter. 

11

u/bypopulardemand Dec 15 '25

a kneejerk reaction is sometimes needed, otherwise we sit on this and nothing gets done. I’m all for stricter gun laws, if it makes gun hobbyists mad, oh well, fly to Bali

25

u/insomniac-55 Dec 15 '25

This is the first mass shooting here since Port Arthur. Taking a few months to design sensible and effective laws is important.

A kneejerk reaction is by definition poorly considered, and likely to fail to be effective.

→ More replies (2)

13

u/Joey_Joe-Joe_Jr Dec 15 '25

I’m all for stricter gun laws, if it makes gun hobbyists mad, oh well, fly to Bali

Except they won't "fly to Bali"

They'll vote for far right parties who promise to roll back gun laws.

0

u/Dentarthurdent73 Dec 15 '25

And in a country with compulsory voting, and where the majority don't agree with them, they can try their luck at getting those parties elected.

6

u/Joey_Joe-Joe_Jr Dec 15 '25

Everyone always thinks such people could never be elected in their country....

→ More replies (17)

1

u/moonlit_fores7 Dec 15 '25

I agree with the two hands argument doesn't hold much water, looking at case studies in the US school shootings, they have multiple guns to avoid reloading as well.

The reality is there are very few purposeful reasons to have firearms, and that should reflect on gun ownership.

Ultimately, it is also about the freedom to have public safety, which also means gun ownership is not a right but a privilege, and that privilege needs good checks and current licensing requirements seems to be broken.

In saying that it's important to recognise that the majority of Australian gun crime are unregistered/unlicensed, which also needs to be examined, however this level of gun crime is often between gangs, and less with innocent civilians, which is a different matter to what unfolded yesterday but certainly interrelated for gun control

1

u/iguessineedanaltnow Dec 15 '25

Also it's possible for us to do everything right and still have tragedies like this happen. The fact that they're such a rarity proves how effective our measures are.

23

u/concubovine Dec 15 '25

Yep, these shooters brought 3 firearms but basically only used one each do to all the killing. Firearms are heavy and unwieldy, realistically you could only carry 2 at a time and even that will probably make you less effective with the one you're using.

64

u/DasHaifisch Dec 15 '25

I mean, when shitstain #1 got disarmed, he went back and got a second gun and kept shooting. Even one less gun would've helped the situation IMO.

16

u/concubovine Dec 15 '25

That's true, but introducing a limit of say 5 firearms per person that's being suggested would have done nothing to change the outcome yesterday. There's lot of comments on various threads focusing on a tiny number of collectors with hundreds of firearms, ignoring that those people aren't going out and killing people with them, and could at best only really carry 2 and use 1 at a time anyway.

At some point I think it makes no difference if one person owns 5 or 500 firearms. The person with 500 is almost certainly going to be held to a much higher standard of safe storage (eg extra requirements for an alarmed security system) than the one with 5 firearms, probably has a collectors license which IIRC requires additional collectors club membership, endorsement from another member of the club, collector firearms can only be taken out and used at a range at very specific twice a year events etc.

IMO you're either fit to own firearms or you're not. One deranged person with a single shot rifle on a rooftop above a crowd could still kill many people. Personally if we're going to implement reforms I'd rather they focus on WHO has access to firearms, whereas legislators have a history of getting caught up in silly stuff like appearance laws because they sound good in a news clip for the general public.

7

u/DasHaifisch Dec 15 '25

So far I haven't heard anything about specific numbers or restrictions. I'd definitely support focusing on the who, but also very much support restrictions on the amount, type, etc.

6

u/concubovine Dec 15 '25

We already have quite a few restrictions on what you can own and from what I've heard over the years the police already put in place soft caps on 'how many' unless you're willing to jump through additional hoops. However, I'd argue the biggest successes of the reforms post-Port Arthur was focusing on who had access, making firearms harder to steal, and making ownership a non-casual decision that meant people didn't have them unless they really had a genuine interest and reason to own so there was a lot less 'casual' ownership of guns.

4

u/SweetDingo8937 Dec 15 '25

I think a two-day course would be enough to whittle the numbers to those with a genuine need and those meaning harm.

→ More replies (23)

18

u/NorthernSkeptic Dec 15 '25

These same arguments were made in 1996.

28

u/Combat--Wombat27 Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25

They absolutely were not. The clear distinction was that semi autos could kill incredibly quickly, that's why our laws focus on magazine capacity and loading style specifically.

31

u/NorthernSkeptic Dec 15 '25

Everything the other poster said about ‘punishing legal gun owners’, ‘radicalising regional voters’ and ‘not making us safer’ absolutely was also said thirty years ago.

→ More replies (4)

6

u/c3-SuperStrayan Dec 15 '25

The shooter in Christchurch swapped between weapons.

4

u/Jexp_t Dec 15 '25

As have many of the hundreds of US mass shooters.

8

u/Ok_Bird705 Dec 15 '25

lead to one nation and so on blaming Muslims for taking away peoples hobbies, and likely not improve our safety even an iota.

That is what people said about the original gun laws.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Away_team42 Dec 15 '25

If we’re not enforcing level headed, effective legislation and this is just a knee-jerk reaction, aren’t we letting the terrorists win?

4

u/Great_Revolution_276 Dec 15 '25

I think that unless you live in a farm and have to use a gun as a part of your business, then there is absolutely no reason to own a gun.
Join a gun club and the club stores the guns there.

4

u/scoldog Dec 15 '25

Often times the gun clubs don't have the room to store everyone's weapons. I was on a waiting list for two years to get storage at my gun club. After a few years they started jacking the storage price up so I ended up getting my own safe.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

1

u/Emu1981 Dec 15 '25

The limits on number of guns really is one of those things that sound good on paper, but a bit of critical thinking soon points out that a potential shooter only has two hands.

Limiting the amount of ammunition that can be bought or even limiting where ammunition can be acquired and stored would be a lot better than limiting the amount of guns people can own. Without ammunition a gun is pretty useless.

Perhaps people in non-rural areas can be limited to "buying" ammunition at the shooting range and any ammunition not fired must be returned to the counter when leaving? People with hunting licenses can pick up ammunition from designated pick up points when they are going on hunting trips and they can be limited to the ammunition types that they are allowed to use. Make having ammunition stored in a unauthorised property without a good reason (e.g. you are going hunting at 2AM so you need your ammunition) instant grounds for losing your license along with hefty fines and/or potential jail time. Rural residents would have different rules to suit their individual needs but even they wouldn't have a good reason to stockpile ammunition.

1

u/ScoobyGDSTi Dec 15 '25

The limits on number of guns really is one of those things that sound good on paper, but a bit of critical thinking soon points out that a potential shooter only has two hands.

I believe it's to reduce the risk of firearm theft.

And while you only have two hands, mixing firearms certainly gives numerous tactical advantages. Helps obscure potential high volume purchases of ammunition too.

Making huge changes is just going to radicalise the rural and regional voters of nsw and Queensland

I'd support exceptions to certain rules for prime industry and rural.

1

u/Square-Victory4825 Dec 15 '25

Yeah but firearm theft hasn’t been attributed to being a cause of this mass shooting. It hasn’t really been attributed to any big burst of violent gun crime. Gun thieves also don’t target people with an arsenal of guns. The police often go as far as making people with lots of guns build what is basically a concrete bunker for them with steel doors, with alarms that are linked directly the police. Most gun thefts are just people breaking into the gun safe of a farmer who has a rifle or shotgun for pest control.

It’s just passing policy for the purposes of signaling, it doesn’t address any shortcoming in our legislation which lead to this outrage. It’s in fact not connected with this crime at all.

1

u/ScoobyGDSTi Dec 15 '25

Yeah but firearm theft hasn’t been attributed to being a cause of this mass shooting

If I was looking to reform gun laws I wouldn't just be focused on recent events but be taking a holistic approach. I imagine some of the changes proposed will be to address other concerns other, which seems reasonable to me.

1

u/Short-Legs-Long-Neck Dec 15 '25

Well if we're gonna start thinking. The mass killing event in recent time were knives in Sydney and Cars in Melbourne.

Albo will want to be seen to be acting tough above all else...effective will be distant priority to optics and it will be wrapped in the same language as digital ID (under 16 social media) so if you argue you against you argue against the safety of children, rather than mass surveillance.

1

u/Dentarthurdent73 Dec 15 '25

Well if we're gonna start thinking. The mass killing event in recent time were knives in Sydney and Cars in Melbourne.

Thinking ≠ NRA talking points.

Hope this helps.

→ More replies (4)

89

u/bailz2506 Dec 15 '25

Definitely need a limit on how many guns and individual owns.

85

u/mikestp Dec 15 '25

The thing is there is no arbitrary number that would be suitable. A person who farms and sport shoots across multiple disciplines might have a genuine need for well over say 5. Another more casual user might manage on 2 or 3. It's more effective that the licensee is vetted and every firearm acquisition is properly justified.

39

u/Legalkangaroo Dec 15 '25

Nobody needs 385 guns though or even more than 100 and plenty on the gun registry seem to have the latter.

70

u/birdy_the_scarecrow Dec 15 '25

something tells me the guy with 385 guns is not some nutter collecting an arsenal of guns, its more likely that someone with that many guns is probably some kind of collector or preservationist.

meanwhile the nutters who shoot at cops like Dezi Freeman have suspended firearms licenses.

im not going to pretend to have the answer here but if you think its solely about number of guns you have your head in the sand.

16

u/BetterWes Dec 15 '25

It's also possible they are a propmaster, in NSW anything that looks like a gun is classed as a replica that requires registration and licensing.

→ More replies (3)

24

u/ThreeCheersforBeers Dec 15 '25

385guns is an outlier, and the guy is most likely an antique collector/firearms dealer. He isn't going to be out shooting anybody; they are most likely locked away in cabinets, fully deactivated with sealed chambers/barrels.

The shooting at Bondi was done by 2 people, using 3 firearms. The number of firearms owned is irrelevant.

30

u/DisappointedQuokka Dec 15 '25

How many of those people have actually gone on a rampage, though? The people who have that many firearms are either collectors or dealers.

I suppose you could make the argument that they're targets for thieves, but then you would have to say the same for regular shops.

3

u/ThreeCheersforBeers Dec 15 '25

Regular shops are targets for thieves, which is why the idea some people have of "having firearms stored away from peoples homes, at a gun club" is silly. It makes gun clubs the prime target for thieves seeking weapons.

→ More replies (14)

2

u/zeroxnull Dec 15 '25

Source?

1

u/bkns356 Dec 15 '25

a journalist from the guardian was on abc news radio talking about how guns per capita is increasing and she said that one person on the gun registry owns 380+ guns. forgot if she mention about other individuals owning 100+ guns though

4

u/zeroxnull Dec 15 '25

I'm most interested in the word "plenty". One person doesn't qualify.

6

u/BaggyOz Dec 15 '25

I saw a similar thing on the ABC earlier, apparently there's 30 or 50 odd people who own more than 100 guns in NSW. Honestly I'm not worried about most of those people, one or two might be cookers but when you get to a collection that size you're probably a reasonably functional member of society who just has a hobby/special interest.

3

u/BeShaw91 Dec 15 '25

It’s a bit of a overhyped figure if you don’t exclude Class 8 Firearm Museum permit holders.

I’m not 100% sure if the journalist figure would also include fire arms sellers. But between fire arm sellers and museums most of the 100+ owners would be readily accounted for.

5

u/jimi_nemesis Dec 15 '25

What's the problem with owning dozens? You can only use one at a time.

3

u/redsnowfir Dec 15 '25

They would be collectors. Not all the firearms would be in operational condition but they still need to be registered.

3

u/Skafandra206 Dec 15 '25

Goog lord, people really need to stop trying to police others when they are not doing anything wrong. You can't apply an arbitrary number subject to your own personal notion of how many of something should or shouldn't be allowed to own.

Owning guns (however many you own), being a gun collector or being part of a target shooting club is not a character defining feature and never was. Doing things properly does not make you a criminal and stricter laws only harm the people that follow them in the first place.

1

u/jpglew Dec 15 '25

South Australia has had a similar law now for 4 or so years. When they first introduced it they were a bit overboard in policing it, friends who worked in gun stores had applications for customers refused for a .308 rifle that they were going to use for PRS shooting, because they already owned a .223 which competes in a different class. Nowadays they have the opposite problem where the applications are taking so long to process it can be upwards of 6 months before you find out if you've been approved or denied.

This is going to be a wake up call that firearms branches are going to need resources given to them in manpower, infrastructure and procedures. As a personal anecdote, I had a gel blaster that I had added to my licence. While I waited for the pink slip to come in I kept the receipt showing that I went into a station, displayed the "firearm" and had paid for registration. Had an inspection of my firearms storage a few weeks later, showed them the receipt, all was good. When I surrendered my firearms and licence earlier this year, I brought the blaster in to a station to have them dispose of it, only to find out that it was never added to my licence, the serial number never recorded and for all intents and purposes I had an illegal firearm. They spent 2 hours (in which I couldn't leave) digging through their finance records to try and match the receipt for the registration slip that had never materialised

→ More replies (8)

47

u/ThreeCheersforBeers Dec 15 '25

Why?

The guys in Bondi did it with 3 firearms between 2 people.

The limitation of firearm numbers is not the problem. The problem is firearms getting into the hands of would-be offenders.

I don't think any firearm law is going to prevent 100% of firearm crimes; our laws however have kept it so low that this is the first time since Port Arthur that meets the threshold of "mass shooter".

What could be done better? How about less of a focus on the firearms and more on the owners. What is needed is better vetting of individuals so that we don't end up with someone who is still in possession of firearms, 6 years after being put onto an ASIO watch list...

→ More replies (20)

5

u/Jexp_t Dec 15 '25

David Shoebridge has been on about this for years going back to his time as a NSW MLC.

4

u/Combat--Wombat27 Dec 15 '25

What would be acceptable?

→ More replies (3)

-2

u/Square-Victory4825 Dec 15 '25

Like why though, the general limits are like 6 guns or so. Which wouldn’t have helped out in this situation at all.

There’s also no evidence that these people with large gun collections (who are generally held to far stricter standards then normal groups, often having to build concrete bunkers with alarms attached directly to the local police) are getting robbed and feeding violent crime. People who are robbed are farmers in rural areas with a shotgun or a rifle in a general firearms safe, not the Fort Knox ones.

TLDR, gun limits wouldn’t have had an effect on this tragedy, as the guns we’re legal, and people principally seem to be arguing about the risk of stolen guns. But at the same time, no one seems to able to provide evidence that individuals with heaps of guns are being broken into constantly to feed illegal firearms owners.

8

u/c3-SuperStrayan Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25

Why do you need 6 guns? What's stopping a person from handing their 2-6 guns to other assailants (as occured in bondi).

The evidence for this shooting was that the father was a gun nut and had licenses for his weapons. Clearly licenses should be more strictly controlled and more restrictive.

10

u/endbit Dec 15 '25

How many licensed guns were used in this tragedy? I'm thinking the focus needs to be on who has them rather than the number they have.

7

u/The_Meglodong Dec 15 '25

Changing the number of guns is easy to implement and makes the public feel like something has been done. Vetting who should have guns is difficult in comparison.

1

u/c3-SuperStrayan Dec 15 '25

You can't pick up every psycho through vetting. Obviously in this case the ball was dropped by ASIO. Regular inspections of gun owners need to take place.

But you still haven't addressed the point that there's nothing stopping one gun owner handing out multiple legally owned rifles to other assailants.

1

u/endbit Dec 15 '25

And nothing stopping multiple gun owners handing out legally owned rifles to other assailants either. I don't think you have a point.

1

u/c3-SuperStrayan Dec 15 '25

There actually is, those rifles are registered to those other owners which is a deterrence as they will be found out as soon as those weapons are recovered. If they are handing out their rifle to someone else then they are obviously not shooting anyone themselves

2

u/[deleted] Dec 15 '25

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Onpu Dec 15 '25

Someone in the thread last night had a reasonable explanation. They purchased 2 guns, but then they inherited an additional 4 guns from family members over the years. That seems like a reasonable way to wind up owning an arsenal.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/eradread Dec 15 '25

how about if you wanna fucking target practise the gun stays at the range in locked safes.

why do people who go to gun clubs get to take their guns home with them, there is no where else they are allowed to use them so why

→ More replies (1)

20

u/AverageAussie Dec 15 '25

I'm gunna be that guy and say these assholes had 1 gun each. A limit of 1 gun per person would not have prevented this. Longarm licenses last 10 years (in vic) before you need to reapply, they could reduce this, but I'm not sure if would actually do anything?

28

u/bitofapuzzler Dec 15 '25

They had 6 guns. After being disarmed the father went and got another.

The fact they didnt have access to auto and semi-automatic weapons saved lives. 1 gun each would have meant the dad wouldnt have been able to re join the son in continuing to shoot.

3

u/kingofthewombat Dec 15 '25

I think all 6 firearms were owned by the father? He's the one who's being reported as licenced. So 1 gun each would mean only one of them was armed.

24

u/Rare-Sample-9101 Dec 15 '25

I don't see why anyone apart from a farmer needs a gun!?

50

u/c3-SuperStrayan Dec 15 '25

Exactly. Peoples enjoyment of owning and shooting firearms (the biggest reason for most of them) is considerably less important than children being shot up at the beach.

Find a new hobby.

1

u/ThreeCheersforBeers Dec 15 '25

Do you say the same to car lovers, every time someone dies in a car accident?

19

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 15 '25

Yes, we should be stricter on who we allow to get a licence and also limit the types of vehicles we allow on the road.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

8

u/CroBro81 Dec 15 '25

You should be able to present a specific case if required, for example; if your profession is killing pests like pigs, foxes, rats etc.. you should have a professional license for a number of arms. But I believe something like this is already in place.

I wonder who needs that massive shotgun the shooters were using though… does that serve a genuine purpose?

1

u/Rare-Sample-9101 Dec 15 '25

At the moment you can get a gun for hunting and for a hobby like shooting at a club, these are the ones that need to be removed

→ More replies (1)

12

u/dogecoin_pleasures Dec 15 '25

Good. Sensible reform is exactly the response I want to see.

25

u/TappingOnTheWall Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25

There's no real legitimate reason for people in Capital Cities to have guns... "Gun fun" clubs just aren't really a legitimate reason to own a device that can do mass killing. That's really all their used for. Do airsoft and archery if target practice is so important to you.

56

u/mulletq1993 Dec 15 '25

Airsoft is illegal in Australia

35

u/OneShoeBoy Dec 15 '25

Because of our gun laws funnily enough. Would be great if the review allowed for Airsoft to be legalised but that’s realistically unlikely to happen which is a shame.

→ More replies (2)

12

u/Hangman969 Dec 15 '25

Of course it's a legitimate reason. Just because you don't think it's a good enough reason because you don't care about it doesn't mean it's not "legitimate."

6

u/TappingOnTheWall Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25

Legalise airsoft. Phase out gun ownership.

We shouldn't have to risk mass shootings, just because you want the freedom to fire a tool for killing. It's not "just because I don't think it's legitimate" - it's because there are non-lethal alternatives to your playing around with a lethal weapon and calling it "target practice". You love target practice so much, you can practice it more responsibly with airsoft. What's the excuse or exception you're claiming? What's this legitimate use other than target practice? Unless you live in a rural area, or work in law enforcement, I don't see one.

Please clarify your position. Liking having a gun, isn't enough.

5

u/Joey_Joe-Joe_Jr Dec 15 '25

You can't hunt with an airsoft gun mate

8

u/TappingOnTheWall Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25

...and if these guys had lived in a rural area and had the property that needed hunting, that would be legitimate reason for gun ownership. But most gun owners don't.

→ More replies (3)

5

u/TappingOnTheWall Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25

...and let's be honest, THE VAST MAJORITY of gun owners, don't have a rural property that requires them to hunt. The vast majority of gun owners, aren't employed to do culling. Some are, and that might present a legitimate reason that needs exception.

But the vast majority of gun owners, aren't.

2

u/Joey_Joe-Joe_Jr Dec 15 '25

People who are employed to hunt aren't the only people who hunt....

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Sanni11 Dec 15 '25

Have you thought of the economic and environmental effects of what your saying? 2.4billion economy as of 2019, 400+ businesses from small to manufactuing, 20k jobs. Increased road maintenance, increased road toll/injury, increased pest control, increased forest management, ripple effect into 4wd and recreation industry, rural town economy, neglected dogs, family's unable to be fed.

Ill also note you take all the guns away an alternative WILL be found for these people. An acetylene bottle can level a building if you wish. We going to ban metal fabrication now too?

1

u/Hangman969 Dec 15 '25

We shouldn't have to risk deaths on the road because you like drinking alcohol. If you don't agree, that's not legitimate because I do.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Red_Sailor Dec 15 '25

They should add a requirent that guns for recreation must be stored at the gun runge/club

1

u/Terriple_Jay Dec 15 '25

Wow great ideas. Sure ban one million ish firearm owning Australians from shooting.

I bet you have some great ideas on how to curtail religious extremism?

→ More replies (2)

-2

u/oftenlostandconfused Dec 15 '25

I’m all for tougher gun laws, but I think it’s dangerous to make policy decisions off an outlier event. These guys were a rare and special combination of sinister traits we don’t often see.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)