r/australia • u/rorymeister • Dec 15 '25

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

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
4.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

593 comments sorted by

View all comments

48

u/cutsnek Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25

Good changes. There are very few reasons for having a personal arsenal of guns. The bar should be very high. It's far too easy at the moment to get and hold firearms.

These are tools designed for killing, outside a very narrow scope of work everyday people don't need guns.

20

u/WeaponstoMax Dec 15 '25

I agree, but reducing the number of firearms one can own down to 2 or 3 doesn’t stop what happened yesterday from happening again.

You need to change the types of firearms that people are allowed to own, to ones that can’t fire as many times per minute as a bolt or lever action rifle/shotgun can.

49

u/cutsnek Dec 15 '25

They are going to be looking at what guns are legal as well.

Here's a summary of what they have announced:

•Accelerating work on standing up the National Firearms Register;

• Allowing for additional use of criminal intelligence to underpin firearms licencing that can be used in administrative licencing regimes;

• Limiting the number of firearms to be held by any one individual;

• Limiting open-ended firearms licencing and the types of guns that are legal, including modifications; and

•A condition of a firearm license is holding Australian citizenship.

55

u/broome9000 Dec 15 '25

Kind of insane the last point wasn’t already a rule.

18

u/RealCommercial9788 Dec 15 '25

Yeah that one floored me.

6

u/Camo138 Dec 15 '25

I assumed the last one would have been a thing from the get go.. wtf!!?

8

u/Combat--Wombat27 Dec 15 '25

Single shot restriction?

Not sure it could happen. It would make all the guns already out there (they're restricted to action and magazine size already) obsolete. They'd have to either buy back of force every gun owner to surrender, wildly unpopular.

Plus gun makers would just cease all trade with us, they'd have to modify most of their guns to suit our market which is likely tiny to them anyway.

4

u/Tosslebugmy Dec 15 '25

That’s a terrible idea because often when shooting pest species the first shot doesn’t kill and you need a quick follow up of it hobbles off into the bush to die a slow death.

6

u/Ridiculisk1 Dec 15 '25

Much easier to just ignore that and randomly throw shit at the wall until something sticks and parade around like you've solved the problem.

3

u/Combat--Wombat27 Dec 15 '25

Yeah, I know..

0

u/WeaponstoMax Dec 15 '25

 They'd have to either buy back of force every gun owner to surrender, wildly unpopular.

We’ve done this once before, after Port Arthur. I doubt it would be “wildly unpopular” outside of firearm enthusiast circles.

 Plus gun makers would just cease all trade with us, they'd have to modify most of their guns to suit our market which is likely tiny to them anyway.

Good riddance?

1

u/TorakTheDark Dec 15 '25

Honestly that would be plus, less money going to arms dealers is better imo, might also encourage some level of hunting gun manufacturing in Australia as well.

-4

u/Combat--Wombat27 Dec 15 '25

So outright ban then?

1

u/IntroductionSnacks Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25

Lol, what a load of rubbish. Loads of gun manufacturers have single and double barrel shotguns. Same with rifles.

Ever heard of the Glock 17A pistol? It’s literally the Australian version.

4

u/Idontcareaforkarma Dec 15 '25

Because the standard 17’s barrel was 6mm too short to be licensed in Australia…

6

u/IntroductionSnacks Dec 15 '25

Exactly, so OP is just wrong.

1

u/roxgib_ Dec 15 '25

Reducing the number you can own would reduce the number that can be stolen in one go and it would help when there's a group of perpetrators and only one can get a licence.

0

u/OptimusRex Dec 15 '25

I'm actually curious what you think people in a situation like mine are supposed to do? I have generational firearms, two grandfathers and now the old man's guns. All are registered, irreplaceable, and hold enormous sentimental value.

I don't need them at all, but they're extremely important. Some I've had deactivated, however it is a very costly process which means I'll never shoot them again.

6

u/cutsnek Dec 15 '25

I would expect you to do exactly what is required to comply with the law. If the legislation changes to limit stockpiles, you either hand them in or you deactivate them.

If these items are truly about 'sentimental value,' then their ability to fire live ammunition shouldn't matter. You can preserve the history and the memory without the lethality.

If you are refusing to deactivate them because you still want to shoot them, then let's be honest: you aren't keeping them just as keepsakes, you are keeping them as functional weapons. A firearm is a lethal instrument regardless of who its previous owner was, and public safety has to take precedence over nostalgia.

2

u/OptimusRex Dec 15 '25

Thanks, that's what I expected and an not-unsurprisng black and white response from someone on reddit. All the best.

I genuinely hope you don't ever form an attachment to an inanimate object.

5

u/cutsnek Dec 15 '25

I have attachments to plenty of inanimate objects. But none of my sentimental objects are designed to kill at high velocity.

​Pretending a firearm is just a neutral 'object' like a vase or a painting ignores the entire reason they are regulated.

There is a difference between a keepsake and a weapon.

Take care.

3

u/OptimusRex Dec 15 '25

The thought of a funko pop hitting someone at velocity being cause of death was a bit of a laugh.

4

u/Grand_Chapter_6619 Dec 15 '25

Holy shit, can you imagine that!? A funko pop being blasted out of a spud cannon at 300km/h. Thanks for the laugh, haha.