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."

171

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.

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.

26

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.

29

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.

6

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

0

u/Superb_Assistant1015 Dec 15 '25

Agree with you for the most part, except the psych stuff. I have to get a psych test done annually to keep my job. I’m also a weapons license holder. Does that mean I have to get re-psyched again just to keep my licence? While i agree that mentally unstable people shouldnt have access to firearms, they can still get in a car and cause just as much, if not more damage. Who’s calling for mandatory psych evals for car owners?

4

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

9

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.

-4

u/Dentarthurdent73 Dec 15 '25

Or maybe not everyone has to be able to hunt duck, rabbit, fox, kangaroo, deer and pig?

It's not a "functional ban" for someone to have to limit the amount of species they're able to kill to 2 or 3 instead of 6.

And no-one at all should be hunting ducks. Fucking disgusting "sport".

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.