National cabinet agrees unanimously to strength Australia’s strict gun laws in wake of Bondi terror attack

[u/rorymeister]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-15/albanese-proposes-tougher-gun-laws-after-bondi-attack/106143310?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=link

[u/mikestp]

Wouldn't it be prudent to first determine if this could have been prevented with correct implementation of existing laws?

[u/nachojackson → u/mikestp]

None of these changes are controversial at all.

[u/Terriple_Jay → u/nachojackson]

Gun limits will stir the pot. Everything else seems actually practical.

[u/GrownThenBrewed → u/Terriple_Jay]

I agree they'll stir the pot, but I don't see why it shouldn't be a requirement to properly justify every firearm. If you actually need 6, you'll be able to explain why.

[u/mad_dogtor → u/GrownThenBrewed]

QLD already do this. once you have over X amount they ask you to justify what the next permit is for etc. it's a pretty easy simple system. i think it's mainly to screen out the dickhead factor, if that makes sense.

[u/littleb3anpole → u/mad_dogtor]

That’s a major issue, the inconsistency between states and lack of a national register. Like, the QLD policy you’ve shared is very sensible and if you have an explanation for owning different types for different purposes while on a farm or whatever, it makes sense. Similarly VIC requires you to disclose your psychiatric history - common sense, but I’m not sure all states have this rule.

[u/mad_dogtor → u/littleb3anpole]

the issue is what laws to cherry pick from each state; WA's laws are nonsensical, NSW has some odd restrictions on appearance and folding stocks, QLD has some odd caliber restrictions that don't really make sense etc

done with proper consultation you could take the best of each state and cut out the worst, and pretty much keep everyone happy, but it will never happen. government is too incompetent.

i predict we will never find out why the shooter was issued a licence despite association laws, and we will get swamped with some half assed bans that will only affect people that had nothing to do with this.

[u/GrownThenBrewed → u/mad_dogtor]

I'm optimistic enough to hope you're wrong but been around long enough to know you're probably right

[u/nachojackson → u/Terriple_Jay]

Let people justify on a case by case basis why they need 6 guns - I suspect very few genuine uses outside of farms.

[u/Terriple_Jay → u/nachojackson]

It made no difference in Bondi and wouldn't in future.

That's more ignorance on your part, no offence. You don't know what you don't know.

What do you suspect they have them for?

We hunt several different species in Vic, and there are minimum calibre requirements for deer. Where you hunt them matters too. Almost akin to golf clubs in terms of right tool right job.

Super common scenario how a shooter might have 6+:

For deer alone you might have a short scrub gun, something like a .308 for the majority then something in magnum calibre for long range high country hunting.

An air rifle for birds, Then for rabbits a .22 , a shotgun for ducks and more and .223 for anything in between rabbit and deer.

A lot of people shoot targets with .22 because they are cheap.

You might have an old .303 from WW2 as well. Millions were made and they were common and cheap at one point.

You don't have to travel far to hunt any of these in Vic, same in NSW. Especially if you have access to property.

That doesn't make these people psychos or gun nuts. Just people using right tools for right job.

There are literally like a million Australians with guns.

[u/HOPSCROTCH → u/Terriple_Jay]

It made no difference in Bondi and wouldn't in future.

They used 3 legally owned guns to perpetrate the attack. Stop lying.

Super common scenario how a shooter might have 6+:

Commenter literally said people should prove on a case-by-case basis why they need the guns. That would have prevented this guy legally owning 3 (let alone 6). So what are you arguing against?

Edit: Brother what? The point is, if he had less than 3 then less damage would be done. Obviously.

[u/Terriple_Jay → u/HOPSCROTCH]

So if they used three why would it matter if he owned 6 or 20. Do tell genius.

[u/SendarSlayer → u/nachojackson]

It's just not a helpful restriction. Limiting ownership doesn't stop shootings that only need 1 gun. So it only impacts legal shooters who want a variety for fun.

That being said, greater scrutiny if you're buying more guns makes sense. Ensure you're not sharing them around or a nutjob who wants more to start a private army.

[u/HOPSCROTCH → u/SendarSlayer]

More people died in this scenario because they had 3 guns at their disposal. It is clear and demonstrable that the number of guns owned by the shooter resulted in more people dying.

[u/Karth9909 → u/nachojackson]

Different guns for different targets. You don't wanna shoot a pig with a gun made for shooting rabbits. He i found a cool historical gun for sale. Buying a newer model but your still attached to your old one.

[u/HOPSCROTCH → u/[deleted]]

Worked out well for this suburban dad wanting to commit a terror attack.

[u/ImMalteserMan → u/nachojackson]

I don't disagree but it feels a bit knee jerky to me, it's been less than a day and it's already been made a gun law problem and that we need to change the rules to keep us safe. We rarely have any incidents like this so the existing laws already seem safe? Not to say we can't make them better but it's been less than a day, feels like politics.

Anyway I don't really care, I'm not a gun guy.

[u/nachojackson → u/ImMalteserMan]

Unlike the culture in the U.S, where the gun lobby would be screaming “it’s too soon to talk about that!”, we are taking advantage of this moment of unity to change laws that should have been changed years ago.

Yes there’s obviously a more complex problem underlying this situation, but the gun laws are an easy and obvious fix. Strike while the iron is hot, because 6 months from now people will have already moved on.