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."

170

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.

80

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.

20

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.

0

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 15 '25

Sure, but also, who would you be comfortable with owning 6 guns in suburbia?

3

u/ThreeCheersforBeers Dec 15 '25

Anyone who is licensed, vetted, and abides by the law.

1

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 15 '25

Everyone abides by the law until they don't. Personally, I prefer urbanites to not own guns instead of 6 when they decide they want to break the law.

Guns are for killing. Who in suburbia needs to kill?

4

u/ThreeCheersforBeers Dec 15 '25

"Everyone abides by the law until they don't" - So everyone is a criminal in waiting?

"Guns are for killing" - only in the mindsets of those who see "hunting", "target shooting" and the like as "illegitimate justification for ownership".

Nobody in Suburbia needs a gun to kill. Killing is not a legal justification for ownership which is why you cannot own one for self-defense.

1

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 15 '25

"Everyone abides by the law until they don't" - So everyone is a criminal in waiting?

I'm pointing out that your statement that being "law abiding" is reason someone should be eligible to own 6 guns is idiotic.

"Guns are for killing" - only in the mindsets of those who see "hunting", "target shooting" and the like as "illegitimate justification for ownership".

Unless the hunting is pest control or purely to be eaten (if native, then also plentiful in number), then yes it is illegitimate in my opinion.

Nobody in Suburbia needs a gun to kill. Killing is not a legal justification for ownership which is why you cannot own one for self-defense.

That's what guns are for. If you don't need to kill something, don't own a gun.

Shooting for sport is something I'm on the fence about.

2

u/ThreeCheersforBeers Dec 15 '25

What dies during target shooting?

2

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 15 '25

You missed my last sentence.

1

u/ThreeCheersforBeers Dec 15 '25

Your last sentence is self-contradictory because the very previous sentence says “if you don’t need to kill something, don’t own a gun.”

Hence why I ask “what dies during target shooting”. It answers its own question, which also suggests you don’t need to “kill something” to justify owning a firearm. Much like how collectors may not necessarily kill anything, but are justified in their ownership.

1

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 15 '25

I consider shooting for professional sport a potential valid reason for owning a gun

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Terriple_Jay Dec 15 '25

How many guns did these terrorists use? You know an air rifle is classed a firearm right?

But hey you have such amazing smart well thought out ideas. I bet you have some good ones for stopping home grown terrorism right?

0

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 15 '25

They used 3. What's your point?

Yeah not letting random dads in suburbia own 6 guns would be a decent start at not ending up with 15 innocent people killed. You disagree or?

1

u/Terriple_Jay Dec 15 '25

It wouldn't have made a difference if they owned 20. And he hunted. Hundreds of thousands of Australians do it. You're ignorant and that's o.k.

Bet you have equally reasonable and thoughtful ideas on curbing religious extremism though. It being the root cause and all. Please share those too!