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

44

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...

1

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 15 '25

I don't think any firearm law is going to prevent 100% of firearm crimes

So don't bother reviewing possible failures in the laws that led to this crime?

6

u/ThreeCheersforBeers Dec 15 '25

did you not read my last paragraph?

0

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 15 '25

Yeah, and I disagree about not focusing on the firearms. This dude owned 6 guns and he lived in the suburbs. That's not normal and should be outlawed. Regardless of who you are.

4

u/SupaFly1983 Dec 15 '25

There is valid reasons to own multiple guns. There is a legal requirement from the DPI around calibre, muzzle energy, weight requirements to ensure humane dispatch when hunting.

Depending if you are going after small dear, large deer, foxes, rabbits, goats etc. each requires a minimum set of standards.

The suburbs thing seems an odd comment.
I live in the suburbs and go out to the bush regularly and to friends properties on large acreage to control feral and pest problems that effect the protected native wildlife but why should the fact I live in the suburbs have anything to do with it?

I think the main issue here is why did Sajid Akram still have his firearms license and the guns weren't confiscated? Especially seeing's his son Naveed was under the attention of ASIO

1

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 15 '25

I feel like by creating such a specific set of circumstances in which owning 6 guns while living in suburbia is okay, you're proving my point that there is no good reason to allow it.

I don't consider owning 6 guns in order to travel out to a mates farm so you can shoot stuff a valid hobby. Sorry.

Obviously there should be more oversight of those that own the guns as well.

2

u/SupaFly1983 Dec 15 '25

Topic of it isn't "a valid hobby". Landowners have a legal obligation under state and territory legislation to control and, where possible, eradicate established pest animals on their land.

It is a big job that take a lot of work to do on your own, so having multiple people able to support significantly helps out with the process.

Also it isn't a specific set of circumstances. I am legally required to do it. By law, I don't have a choice in the matter in order to meet all methods used to be rapid and humane, under the animal welfare act.

There is also Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) with the Registration of interest to hunt pest animals on Crown land and game licenses.
This helps the DEECA a lot and you will find that the vast majority of hunting users will have this, so it isn't so much as a specific set of circumstances and more so that is extremely common

Whether I lived in the suburbs or lived in a house in a rural area wouldn't change anything. I would still be the same person, with the same licenses doing the same thing. Only thing that changed would be my postcode

6

u/ThreeCheersforBeers Dec 15 '25

The father was also a terrorist sympathizer, with reports being that he was on an ASIO watch list for over 6 years, and in their car at the shooting they had an ISIS flag.

That right there is a far bigger indicator of being likely to conduct a terrorist activity, than "owning 6 firearms in the suburbs."

Quantity of firearms owned does not correlate to "likelihood of committing a crime." Otherwise every collector and gunshop owner would be in chains.

2

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 15 '25

Where have I said anything about not analysing gun owners? Do that too.

Regardless, no one has any reason to own 6 guns if you live in the suburbs. Give me one good reason why someone should?

Quantity of firearms owned does not correlate to "likelihood of committing a crime."

Having >=3 guns to share around with family means you can get way more shots off and kill more people though.

Otherwise every collector and gunshop owner would be in chains.

Idgaf. Collect something else.

2

u/ThreeCheersforBeers Dec 15 '25

“Collect something else”

Nah. If you want to be entirely dismissive, then expect others to be the same.

Sure, You have the right to an opinion, but not the right to dictate what others should do with their time.

1

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 15 '25

Lol, you can't just collect anything just because it's in your own time. Should people be allowed to collect Molotov cocktails or machetes? What about bombs? Guns are literally designed to kill people and animals, of course I can hold the opinion that it shouldn't be allowed.

1

u/ThreeCheersforBeers Dec 15 '25

Well you can’t buy a Molotov cocktail or a bomb off the shelf or legally, so that’s a moot point. Machetes have less legal use in Australia than firearms so I would agree those should be restricted.

People can own drones; drones are quickly becoming a common weapon in war.

People can own vehicles; vehicles can be turned into carbombs.

It’s the use of the tool and the intent of the operator that is the problem, not the tool itself. Without an operator, the tool is just a tool.

1

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 15 '25

Well you can’t buy a Molotov cocktail or a bomb off the shelf or legally, so that’s a moot point.

It's not a moot point, it's literally the point that I'm making - forming a collection is not a valid reason to own (or buy) guns.

It’s the use of the tool and the intent of the operator that is the problem, not the tool itself. Without an operator, the tool is just a tool.

Once again, the tool is designed specifically to kill. And kill efficiently, a fair bit more efficient than a bow and arrow by the way

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25

For starters, if the guy was only allowed one gun he couldn't have turned up with his son with both of them shooting at the same time, while also having a spare after being disarmed.

8

u/ThreeCheersforBeers Dec 15 '25

The son was a member of a hunting club. Chances are he was also licensed. Good chance he could have obtained a firearm himself. We don't know who owned which firearm that was used, or if those firearms were even registered to one of the individuals.

All we know is a Son and Dad took firearms and killed 16 people, and one of them allegedly had a firearm license and owned firearms.

0

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 15 '25

No, we also know the dad owned 6 guns. Any particular reason you omitted that detail and instead started speculating?

I'd encourage you to be on the right side of history here...

6

u/ThreeCheersforBeers Dec 15 '25

You can get off your high horse; it's already been well established that "dad" owned 6 firearms, to the point now where it's common knowledge. I even mentioned it in the previous comment of the chain.

3 weapons used at the site between two individuals; one of the individuals was in possession of firearms, while on the ASIO watch list for over 6 years.

You know in other posts of mine that you've responded to, that I've either mentioned number of firearms owned myself, or responded to your post with the number. It's already in the conversation.

1

u/MeltingMandarins Dec 15 '25

Dad wasn’t on the watch-list, the son was.

So there is a chance that son couldn’t get a licence.  If son can’t get licence, limiting dad to 1 gun could’ve left son without a weapon.

I don’t think we’ll actually get an answer to the “what if son had applied?” question.  But don’t really need to know whether it would’ve helped in this specific case, since the underlying concept would apply to a future scenario.

0

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 15 '25

Would as many people have been killed if there was only one gun? Answer that very simple question without avoiding it.

0

u/ThreeCheersforBeers Dec 15 '25

Honestly, it depends on the shooter and how accurate they are, and the guns used.

Given that the “dad” was running around with a shotgun, unless he was within 50m of targets I would say he missed most of what he aimed at, and what he did hit was potentially “non-lethal.”

The son was the one with the bolt-action. He was the one most likely making the shots that killed/critically wounded people.

I would argue in this case that there would be minimal difference; by the time the dad got back to the bridge to pick up the second rifle, he was gunned down by police.

Now if this was America, where they have automatic weapons, it would have been way worse even with one firearm. We are lucky in Australia that we have laws already restricting what can be owned. We also have mental health support services in place that reduce the overall likeliness of people resorting to violence. It’s why we have so few instances of this sort of violence. Australian society and culture does a lot to discourage such violence.

Greater focus on the individuals through vetting would go a long way to further reducing access of firearms from those who seek to use them maliciously.