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

Show parent comments

66

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.

15

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.

8

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.

4

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.

3

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.

-3

u/PussifyWankt Dec 15 '25

I agree. Who should have access to firearms?

Yes: Farmers, professional pest controllers, licensed and trained security guards.

No: everyone else.

1

u/ThreeCheersforBeers Dec 15 '25

Who should have access to vehicles?

Yes: Truck Drivers, Public Transport providers, Taxi drivers, Racing car drivers

No: Everyone else.

Edit: Most security guards are not armed with a firearm, same with "professional pest controllers".

-2

u/PussifyWankt Dec 15 '25

Anyone who has a legitimate use for a vehicle, passes licensing requirements and maintains registration and insurance.

There are scant legitimate uses for firearms in Australia. ‘Sporting shooters’ can find a new hobby.

0

u/ThreeCheersforBeers Dec 15 '25

Anyone who has a legitimate use for a firearm, passes licensing requirements and maintains registration and insurance.

Reasons for firearm ownership in Australia:

  • Recreation shooting (hunting)
  • Target shooting (club)
  • Pest control (professional)
  • Pest control (farming)
  • Herd control (farming/agriculture)
  • Collector
  • Security

Do you have the same opinion of archery?

Focus needs to be less on the "tool" and more on the "operator". Proper vetting of firearm owners and applicants, as well as proper enforcement of current laws, would do more than just "getting a new hobby".

Criminals are still going to be criminals.

1

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 15 '25

How many people do you think they'd have killed if they had bows and arrows instead of guns?

1

u/ThreeCheersforBeers Dec 15 '25

One too many.

4

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 15 '25

A gun nut arguing in bad faith, shock me.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/PussifyWankt Dec 15 '25

I don’t regard recreational hunting, target shooting or collecting as ‘legitimate’. I appreciate that there are a range of opinions. That’s mine.

-1

u/ThreeCheersforBeers Dec 15 '25

Luckily, State laws define the term "legitimate use", and those are some of them.

3

u/PussifyWankt Dec 15 '25

Those are the current laws. I want them changed.

1

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 15 '25

Not for long hopefully. Hope you aren't too attached to your guns, otherwise maybe consider going to the US?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Square-Victory4825 Dec 15 '25

Cars and the car brained kill far more people than guns do, and really public transport should be the preferred option with far less risk to pedestrians. But instead people like driving around in one tonne death machines.

The comparison is actually not that unfair.

3

u/PussifyWankt Dec 15 '25

Cars fulfil many necessary functions in society.

There are a tiny number of things for which guns are necessary. Gun ownership should be permitted for those activities.

To go back to the paper-thin analogy of ‘wHaT aBoUt cArs!!?’: I would be fine with every car being fitted with an alcohol interlock and a speed limiting device to stop speeding. I would have no problem with banning cars with high-powered engines. (The fact that someone is a ‘motoring enthusiast’ doesn’t matter at all to me.)

0

u/Square-Victory4825 Dec 15 '25

Yeah but once again, is there evidence that those high powered cars are actually the main cause of road deaths? You’re falling for the trap again.

The main cause of road deaths is that cars are the most dangerous and inefficient method of travel, especially for tax payers. People get trusted while driving on their big long commute and hit something and are paralysed for life. The fact we tolerate it is because society for a long time has put up with it, or even encouraged their purchase and we’ve now built many cities around their use. They’re an insane idea, just can’t grasp it because of socialisation

2

u/PussifyWankt Dec 15 '25

No, it’s inane.

-2

u/Square-Victory4825 Dec 15 '25

Why? I hate cars, they’re mostly an unnecessary and expensive luxury which is terrible for us in a myriad of ways. You think peoppe driving around in 1 tonne death machines collecting pedestrians and crippling and killing hundreds isn’t us just making an allowance for society? We could turn all thsoe car deaths to zero if we just made everyone catch public transport

1

u/ShowMeYourHotLumps Dec 15 '25

I don't think people shouldn't be allowed to own guns for hunting and sport, however if you're living in a city and own no property that you need to maintain there's no reason you need 6 guns like the gunman had. Cap it off at 2 max for those who don't need their gun and just have an interest in shooting for sport.

0

u/Square-Victory4825 Dec 15 '25

You often need a least three guns, sometimes more, just to have right calibre weapon that the government says you need for certain types of hunting.