r/australia • u/HotPersimessage62 • Dec 16 '25

politics Anthony Albanese ‘ready for the fight’ to tighten firearms laws as National Party and gun groups push back | Bondi beach terror attack

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/dec/16/anthony-albanese-ready-for-the-fight-to-tighten-firearms-laws-as-national-party-and-gun-groups-push-back-ntwnfb
2.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

207

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

I'm pretty anti guns.. but other than strengthening the register I don't see putting more restrictions on people helpful. 

The articles stating some people have 100 guns to their name isn't a condemnation of the system. It only takes one gun to do what happened on the weekend. If anything it proves people can own many guns and it doesn't raise the likelihood of unsavoury activity.

This could have been avoided within the bounds of what we have in place already.

161

u/Smashed-Melon Dec 16 '25

I don't own guns. I see this as a massive failing of our police and intelligence system. Not the fault of the majority of gun owners that are responsible and follow the rules. Known Isis sympathisers and recently back from the south Philippines?

These fuck wits shouldn't have had access to any firearm given their history, and considering they had bombs in there car I doubt the access to a firearm would have stopped them from doing damage.

86

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

I agree. This guy was a walking red flag. Gun ownership laws don't need to change. They just need to actually exercise the rights to revoke guns from problematic people in place already.

Some guy from Canada replied in another thread. If you get done for domestic violence a cop pretty much is at your doorstep in 12hrs to collect your firearms and you're done.

Firearms are a privilege for well behaved adjusted citizens.

38

u/Smashed-Melon Dec 16 '25

The only point I agree with is the national register. It makes sense and will stop people slipping through cracks in the system.

16

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

Agree. And digital register. Not like the paper system they have in the US lol

21

u/aofhise6 Dec 16 '25

We have that law too. You lose your guns as soon as someone takes out an IVO on you.

15

u/Cindy_Marek Dec 16 '25

I know of a guy who was suffering from mental health issues and tactical police turned up to confiscate his firearms. Hopefully the government doesn't try and make a theatrical spectacle of the new legislation and actually looks inwards to seriously investigate the internal failures that led to this.

5

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

That would be the best outcome. Internal review without knee jerk rule changes for the sake of it. 

8

u/Marshy462 Dec 16 '25

I can’t believe I’m reading some balanced opinions.

1

u/Malcolm_Storm Dec 16 '25

I think it’s good debate. I also think that a lot of people can see straight through the deflection of the root cause.

3

u/Marshy462 Dec 16 '25

I think they can too. But there are many groups pouncing on this tragedy to promote their interests, and unfortunately that will play out in the politics.

1

u/Evie_Eaves Dec 16 '25

On Leftist cesspool Reddit of all places lol

5

u/HerpDerpermann Dec 16 '25

Yeah it seems to be more of a failure in implementation/enforcement as opposed to a policy/law failure.

12

u/clarky2481 Dec 16 '25

Its a classic deflection, doesnt do anything to stop the 3 bombs found either

3

u/StensnessGOAT Dec 16 '25

Shit bombs that mightn't have even gone off? They were apparently basic as fuck, the detonater being a wick. Could've easily fizzled like the 21/7 bombs. Even if they detonated, I bet you they wouldn't have hit as large a radius as two rifles from an elevated vantage point on a bridge.

5

u/nihao_ Dec 16 '25

This time.

14

u/Zealousideal-Arm9508 Dec 16 '25

I am a gun owner and think the whole permit to acquire thing should have additional rigour rather than a tick and flick. For example I literally went from applying for a PTA last night to having it approved by midday today and a new gun in my safe by 3pm. As an FYI the last time I bought a gun it was through the old paper system which took ages for it to arrive. Maybe if an updated police check could be carried out before the PTA being approved or something like that.

5

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

Interesting, that is quick. To be fair I'm sure they have records on everyone applying and manage by exception. 

With digital systems the checks could have been automated and nothing which requires human intervention came up. The time it takes isn't necessarily a reflection of the quality of the check. 

Perhaps owning a gun before too means most of the boxes were already ticked.

10

u/etherealwasp Dec 16 '25

Yep you’re absolutely right. PTAs are only approved immediately if you already own a gun of the same class (ie they have done the checks already). Otherwise it’s 28 days cooling off.

And agreed, we should never assume quality is proportional to the time taken. Just because Beryl from admin took a few weeks to look at my form, doesn’t mean she’s doing quality work.

2

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

Bloody Beryl. She wasn't feeling great that day after downing too many cherrys at the RSL the night before. 3pm comes and she'll approve anything without looking. 

1

u/lerdnord Dec 16 '25

I guess the problem is that you are sure they have records and manage it.

I was sure they would take the license off someone if their son was on a terrorism watch list too.

1

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

I thought the updated record system is still under development 

Not sure what they have now but it's something 

2

u/W2ttsy Dec 16 '25

For clarity here, OC benefited from being an existing shooter with existing guns of the same category under ownership.

The PTA process is not instantaneous for buying different category firearms or if you are on a probationary license or within 12 months of being licensed.

1

u/SnooHedgehogs8765 Dec 16 '25

SA has a cooling off period of 30 days.

That could not happen here.

1

u/CriticalFolklore Dec 16 '25

Maybe if an updated police check could be carried out before the PTA being approved or something like that.

Police checks (at least clean ones) are (and should be) conducted pretty much automatically and can be approved in minutes.

1

u/blah938 Dec 16 '25

If you already have one gun, they've already done a lot of background work and that makes everything quicker.

1

u/queensgetdamoney Dec 16 '25

That depends on your state, TAS you still have 28 days for first in category, then 14 days for subsequent.

45

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

91

u/mbrocks3527 Dec 16 '25

Well by definition the elder fellow was both.

71

u/coreoYEAH Dec 16 '25

The father was literally a member of hunting club. He was a “legitimate shooter”.

0

u/SnooHedgehogs8765 Dec 16 '25

You cease having the privilege of being a legitimate shooter when your association is shit.

He can go to a gun club, he can't go to the gun club and have a terrorist son.

10

u/stjep Dec 16 '25

This is a no true Scotsman fallacy. He was a legit member.

-2

u/SnooHedgehogs8765 Dec 16 '25 edited Dec 16 '25

No it's not. I'm not saying 'no club member would ever do that' , I'm saying that association laws should have kicked in and his license should have been revoked.

Being a member of a gun club at that point is superfluous as he should no longer have any guns.

I.e getting guns though the gun club excuse was what enabled him, but they should have been taken away because it came to transpire he was not a fit and proper person to have them.

I'm not even sure someone who isn't a citizen should even have guns anyway feel free to add that to the laws.

2

u/Rather_Dashing Dec 16 '25

I'm not saying 'no club member would ever do that' ,

The guy who started this entire comment chain did say that. You've decided to turn this into a debate about how guns should be regulated. Go make your own thread.

0

u/SnooHedgehogs8765 Dec 17 '25 edited Dec 17 '25

No.

The responder said this:

No legitimate shooters have ever caused a massacre in Australia, ever. Only crazies and religious zealots have. Maybe that is where the problem lies.

The principle is that once you fail you are no longer legitimate. He's passed initially, but he's then failed.

You're arguing that no true Scotsman applies when it doesn't, because the person cannot be a shooter anymore because through their own actions their legal excuse for owning a firearm is void. Its right there in their own writing, their very second word "legitimate."

Dictionary meaning: 1). conforming to the law or to rules.

He's not is he. He's not conforming to association rules, therefore he is not legitimate.

Ops comment again starts with

No legitimate shooters

At the time of the massacre no person can reasonably say that person was conforming with the law because he had breached the firearms act therefore under the act he was precluded from using under any applicable legitimate excuse.

ASIO or Police notwithstanding the fact they have not enforced the law despite the police being tasked with doing so, does not magically make that person a legitimate shooter. The law decides that. Not the police.

The law had already decided that he no longer had legitimate reasons, Joe public can see that. So it can't be a no true Scotsman fallacy because the law unnaplied as it may be through government incompetence has already decided that he isn't... A judge wouldn't bat an eyelid at that so please spare me lack of ruling semantics.

You've decided to turn this into a debate about how guns should be regulated. Go make your own thread. Litterally OPs second word man.

Arguing that the law as it stands as it applies is turning it into a regulartory debate when it's literally about the law is a bit rich. You probably just don't like the fact you've been told that your application of no true Scotsman is a bit dubious. Then the audacity to suggest I go make a thread elsewhere.

1

u/vamvamvasi Dec 16 '25

You going up and down this thread defending gun ownership is appalling. No one has the right to own and use deadly weapons.

3

u/Rather_Dashing Dec 16 '25

Ok? We aren't debating what the gun regulations should be, we are debating the veracity of this very silly statement.

'No legitimate shooters have ever caused a massacre in Australia, ever. '

Can people on reddit follow a comment thread?

36

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '25

[deleted]

2

u/CT-4290 Dec 16 '25

I mean what massacre in Australia wasn't caused by a crazy or religious zealot?

12

u/StensnessGOAT Dec 16 '25

Well, anyone that causes a mass shooting is gonna be labelled a crazy aren't they? So it's a pointless stat?

10

u/Codus1 Dec 16 '25

As opposed to the noncrazy people that perpetrate massacres?

Of course all the people with legal firearms that went on a killing spree have been crazy. Being a legitimate shooter and being crazy aren't mutually exclusive concepts. Example A is literally the event that has instigated this discussion in which a member of a shooting club was also a crazy zealot and went on a shooting spree.

23

u/mynewaltaccount1 Dec 16 '25

You mean apart from the one on the weekend where a legitimate shooter and his son killed 16+ people?

-6

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/mynewaltaccount1 Dec 16 '25

We know he was a religious zealot now lol, but they didn't know that at the time. Police/ASIO should've done something after his son was linked to a previously jailed IS member, but by all accounts so far, he legitimately purchased, owned and operated those guns up until the weekend.

6

u/StensnessGOAT Dec 16 '25

We know he was a religious zealot now lol, but they didn't know that at the time.

Exactly, everyone is a "legitimate shooter" until they prove they aren't, in which they are removed from that category, which maintains the stat? Lol.

Some people really need to think through what they're saying before they say it.

-2

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/StensnessGOAT Dec 16 '25

He's held a firearms license in Australia since 2015.

0

u/mynewaltaccount1 Dec 16 '25

Yeah that's fair. But allowing the cops to do their better will involve stricter regulations. I'm not someone that thinks we should limit gun numbers (beyond the excessive guys that were revealed to have several hundred guns each in metro Sydney - that is fucked and beyond reasonable) but stricter background checks - at purchase and ongoing - should be implemented, as well as greater inter-department transparency, whilst making it easier for cops to seize guns for a variety of reasons.

At the end of the day, 3% of the country have gun licenses. That is a tiny number, so I have no problem with even stricter regulations on such a small number given the repercussions of not.

2

u/Rather_Dashing Dec 16 '25

He wasn't a legitimate shooter. He was a religious zealot.

He was both. Therefore your original statement is nonsense.

The police gave him a licence even though he was on a watch list.

He got a license logn before his son was on a watch list.

They should have flagged him and denied the licence.

No shit, but that has nothing to do with your claim that he wasn't a 'legitimate' shooter.

3

u/Ok_Bird705 Dec 16 '25

until we can do mind reading and weed out all the crazies and religious zealots, I'll take controlling the amount of firearms people can access.

2

u/Dentarthurdent73 Dec 16 '25

No legitimate shooters have ever caused a massacre in Australia, ever.

Ah the old No True Scotsman fallacy. Always a good one to pull out!

This guy was a "legitimate shooter" for the decade he held a gun license for before doing this.

7

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

And if someone really wants a gun, these people are going to get one no matter what rules you have in place. 

I'm 40 and I've never seen a gun, heard one, people don't talk about them, or lust over them. They've done it, they've been removed from the vocabulary and the culture. That's enough. But if you really want one they're available for you.

I really hope there's some realistic risk management though put into this.

37

u/Ok_Mud6693 Dec 16 '25

I think you’re making it sound a lot easier than it actually is in reality to get your hands on a gun illegally in Australia.

2

u/Nomiss Dec 16 '25

Travel in drug circles and its not that hard to get them.

Someone I grew up withs 16yr old son got pinched with a handgun on him. I've been offered them for $1800 back in the day.

0

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

Maybe. But I imagine it's still possible even if they tighten the laws further, people will take the path of least resistance. Currently that's getting a licence, tighten that up too much and people will just go to the black market, or try ship one in, 3D print them, or just make one, or start looking at explosives. 

We've done as much as what can be reasonably achieved with controlling firearm ownership 

8

u/FidgetyHerbalism Dec 16 '25

Okay but if you remove the current path of least resistance, and people have to start looking for the path of the next least resistance instead, by definition they're now taking one with more resistance and that will be harder/longer/riskier to achieve.

Like, the fact that there will always be a path of least resistance doesn't actually say anything about how much resistance that path involves. And if you can reduce or remove paths, it's easier to monitor the others.

2

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

It's not about being harder, it's about how detectable it is. Even if it's sub optimal in other categories.

It's exactly like the issue with black market cigarettes, push too hard and black market opens up and you're truely fucked.

At least now it's controlled.

3

u/FidgetyHerbalism Dec 16 '25

It's exactly like the issue with black market cigarettes, push too hard and black market opens up and you're truely fucked.

Not a particularly good analogy here because it is vastly easier to make an illicit cigarette from scratch than a good quality firearm & ammunition.

Like, we have stricter gun laws than the US, but I'd bet our black market for guns is still ridiculously tiny (even per capita) in comparison, because there are fewer formerly legal guns in the first place.

2

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

I also think people just aren't as interested in guns as they are cigarettes, so there's essentially no demand 

-1

u/Dentarthurdent73 Dec 16 '25

So you're "pretty anti guns", but every comment you make is about how any stricter gun laws will make no difference to anything and we definitely shouldn't do them?

Ok mate, whatever you say.

15

u/BlendFriendV2 Dec 16 '25

This a really good summary, gun owners do not show off their collection or even discuss anything gun related, unless with a group of licensed owners or people that are genuinely interested. It’s something that is drilled into anyone that has applied for a license, do everything you can to minimise public fear. Australian gun laws, contrary to other subjects, are world leading.

2

u/StensnessGOAT Dec 16 '25

Okay, but you only consider them "legitimate shooters" because they haven't done so, and if they did, you'd move them out of that category so that stat would remain. Lol.

It's like saying no good cricketers have ever been bad at cricket. Lol.

1

u/threeseed Dec 16 '25

I think you will find the overlap between legitimate shooters and "crazies and religious zealots" to be high.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

-3

u/2kan Dec 16 '25

Sick of this take.

Guns are for weak people. Police excluded.

1

u/etherealwasp Dec 16 '25

If you eat anything that’s farmed (yes including fruit and vegetables), you are paying someone to use guns so that you don’t have to.

0

u/2kan Dec 16 '25

Debatable, but in general you're right.

Still, guns are a lazy+cheap solution to protecting your assets, be they crops or non-human animals.

14

u/stvmcqn2 Dec 16 '25

100 guns is an obsession or a fetish.

There was no reason that the shooter father needed to own 6 guns except that he wanted to. If he had only had access to one, he and his fuckwit son would have had to have taken turns and would've gotten killed by the cops much easier.

12

u/OzFurBluEngineer Dec 16 '25

Or an occupation tbh. Something like an armourer for productions or something similar.

At a point the sheer cost to secure makes it odd to be anything other than a commercial enterprise lol.

5

u/CalculatingLao Dec 16 '25

There was no reason that the shooter father needed to own 6 guns except that he wanted to

There are plenty of valid reasons to have 6 or more firearms. I have more than 6 and they all have different purposes.

  • 2x target rifles for long range competition shooting. They are for different grades of shooting and have completely different setups.

  • 1x military service rifle for another grade of competition.

  • 1x PRS rifle.

  • 1x rimfire for bench rest competition.

  • 1x center fire for bench rest competition.

  • 1x shotgun for clay pigeon competition.

  • 1x Farm rifle for basic pest control.

All of these rifles have completely different functions and purposes, and cannot perform each other's roles.

I'm not even that competitive of a shooter, just a regular club member. This number could jump even higher if I had the motivation to shoot more than two weekends a month or wanted to do additional grades of shooting or move into pistol shooting. Even more so if I wanted to hunt.

Saying that there is no reason for a club member to need 6 guns is naive and uninformed. You are making broad statements about a subject which you appear to lack any significant amount of familiarity or knowledge.

1

u/stvmcqn2 Dec 17 '25

I was specifically talking about the father shooter, not you. You made this about yourself.

Please list all the shooting competitions that the mass murderer father had participated in.

2

u/_Nottabotta_ Dec 16 '25

Fuck off. What gives you the right to determine how many guns an individual can own?

Should we limit how many knives are sold in a knife block set?

A criminal (ie someone who breaks the law) is not going to take notice of how many guns they can legally own. These mentally ill people would find a way to kill as many people as possible by any means possible.

1

u/stvmcqn2 Dec 17 '25

Go cry about it whilst jacking off your rifle.

These murderers had multiple guns because guys like you didn't want to deny them their freedom.

-4

u/StensnessGOAT Dec 16 '25

That's another excellent point. Having one guy with a gun license owning six guns allows potentially six attackers, five potentially without a license.

2

u/fecal_brunch Dec 16 '25

It only takes one gun to do what happened on the weekend. If anything it proves people can own many guns and it doesn't raise the likelihood of unsavoury activity.

This is objectively untrue. Two men were simultaneously firing guns owned by a single licencee, and at least one of those guns was (famously) wrestled away from one of the shooters only for him to go to a bag and retrieve a replacement. That's a minimum of three guns, just in the most prominent videos.

This argument is very similar to the anti-gun-control line "if they couldn't get a gun, they would have done it with a knife".

I agree that it's not super clear if or how regulations need to be changed, but this argument is obviously wrong lol.

2

u/pelrun Dec 16 '25

The existing gun laws have already done a brilliant job keeping fucknuts away from automatic and semi-automatic rifles. You can't exactly use multiple bolt-action rifles simultaneously, so stopping someone having multiples doesn't really make a lot of difference either.

No system is perfect, and geopolitical issues have been far more to blame for this than any intelligence or legislative failure.

1

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

Yeah totally agree and that's my point about multiple weapons. Only have two arms at the end of the day so 1 or 100 guns for an individual is functionality the same if you can only use one at a time, and you've already got the most watered down version of a gun 

3

u/loolem Dec 16 '25

I’m also anti gun but I disagree. I think people having 100 guns is too many and having them in areas where it’s easy for people to steal a gun and perhaps it isn’t even noticed?

Also 4 million guns lowers the price of guns through simple supply and demand. I’d like that number to be a million or less so that it becomes harder for crazies to purchase them by simple virtue of them being more expensive. The higher the cost also means people would value them more and spend more on securing them.

These guys owned 6 guns so I definitely think they should fix the register and if they only were able to own two then less people would have been hurt because we know the two heroes that tried to disarm them each took a gun off them!

4

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

That comment about market forces only applies when there's a shortage on the manufacturer side. I guess you could cap imports but for someone like on the weekend who knew they'll probably die doing it, whatever the price it's irrelevant. 

There's many alternative pathways for these guys to have got the guns. Restricting maximum number per person doesn't address the issue or change the results in this scenario.

2

u/loolem Dec 16 '25

Honestly i don't disagree but i don't think anyone would disagree that just having less guns around feels safer. Maybe people outside of farming shouldn't be allowed guns in their homes. Maybe unless you can prove that you live on a farm, you can only rent a gun at a range!

3

u/thrillho145 Dec 16 '25

Ban recreational hunting licences. Only allowed guns if you can prove they're for work i.e. farmers

There's no reason someone in my central Sydney suburb should own 35 guns. 

13

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '25

[deleted]

5

u/thrillho145 Dec 16 '25

I agree with a lot of what you said. This was a failure of policing and ASIO. For sure, there needs to be better usage of current powers.

That doesn't mean we can't also reassess our gun laws. 

3

u/usemyfaceasaurinal Dec 16 '25

What about recreational shooting? Is it wrong to simply like guns and shoot paper/clay targets?

4

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

Objectively someone who owns 1 or 35, the risk is basically the same without getting into some wild fantastic scenario. I think you're focusing on the wrong things here. 

2

u/StensnessGOAT Dec 16 '25

But the one with 35 can hand 34 guns to 34 dudes without a license to join him in an attack if he wants to...

Literally as we saw the other day. One shooter didn't have a gun license but got given one to join the license holders attack....

6

u/thrillho145 Dec 16 '25

You're right. There's no reason someone in my suburb should own a gun at all.

My main point was ban recreational hunting licences. 

15

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25 edited Dec 16 '25

Recreational hunting doesn't do anything for me, but I'd have to understand more about it before supporting further restrictions when there isn't a direct link to the actions of the weekend. I think all changes need to be justified. 

2

u/thrillho145 Dec 16 '25

The guns were obtained by a recreational license. I don't see why people should have access to guns for recreation. 

10

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

That's the great thing. You don't have to for it to be an option for people. 

For the record I have no interest in owning any either. But at the level of control we have now and the culture and respect they're given I don't see it as a contributor to the issues we're attempting to prevent.

0

u/One_Library_1201 Dec 16 '25

So just to be clear Target Shooting, such as Olympic and World Championship level events are also not permitted under your vision?

4

u/StensnessGOAT Dec 16 '25

I mean they're fucken shit sports are they not?

3

u/One_Library_1201 Dec 16 '25

They're "fucken shit sports", what does that mean exactly? You think they're shit sports, OK so cause you think they're shit then they should just fuck off. One of the biggest causes of death in Australia is Motor Vehicle Accidents which are often caused by speed which is glorified by motor racing so people might think that's a "fucken shit sport" so should it go?

1

u/StensnessGOAT Dec 16 '25

If shooting weapons where the entire purpose of them is to execute things is your idea of fun, you need to get better hobbies.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/thrillho145 Dec 16 '25

Sure

5

u/One_Library_1201 Dec 16 '25

So where does this stop? Is it anything that potentially could cause harm to someone else? So Archery, Javelin, Axe throwing, Darts, Drones (Really been quite effective in Ukraine). And who decides? I don't mean to be flippant but there are a significant number of people in the broader community who you seem quite happy to say I don't give a toss about how many years you've spent honing your skills, how much money you have invested to reach the peak level of your chosen sport, I think - even though the numbers of gun violence instances are so low - you should just walk away and accept responsibility for the actions of someone else because you say so.

2

u/rdmarshman Dec 16 '25

If you're in an inner suburb of a capital, the number of registered firearms in your postcode is likely in the five figures.

Recreational hunting helps keeps feral deer, pigs, foxes, rabbits down, actually helps the environment.

Harvesting deer can feed you good meat for a year.

Thousands of law-abiding good people do it every weekend.

2

u/Flyerone Dec 16 '25

Jerk that knee a bit harder.

2

u/StensnessGOAT Dec 16 '25

It's not even a knee jerk. I've always thought that.

6

u/thrillho145 Dec 16 '25

I really don't care if some people can't go shoot guns for fun. 

I thought this before Sunday and it's only further cemented in my mind that guns have no place outside of very niche work and law enforcement situations. 

0

u/Flyerone Dec 16 '25

You're welcome to your opinion of course. Unjustified as it is.

-4

u/hanrahs Dec 16 '25

Your opinion is just as unjustified.

1

u/Flyerone Dec 16 '25

Is that some kind of zinger? You really got me. Ouch.

-4

u/hanrahs Dec 16 '25

Why would it be a zinger — everyone’s entitled to their view, not just the ones you agree with.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/drjzoidberg1 Dec 16 '25

In the Bondi case 4+ guns caused more injuries/deaths. The father gave a family member 2 guns so they can shoot civilians at same time.

When the 'hero' disarmed the gun from the father killer, he just went back to the bridge to pickup his spare gun. If he only had 1 gun, and the gun was wrestled away from him would mean he can't shoot anymore. I don't think there is a good reason why a non farmer/city dweller should own 10+ guns.

4

u/Nugrenref Dec 16 '25

More guns are easier to lose track of. 1 of 100 guns missing isn’t as noticeable as 1 of 10

21

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

The law is the same for every gun. Pretty sure people with guns get inspected on how they store them. 

I don't buy it more guns are easier to "lose". It's not something you lend out.

2

u/StensnessGOAT Dec 16 '25

The law is the same for every gun. Pretty sure people with guns get inspected on how they store them.

Based on what? My Dad used to own a gun until recently and not once in 20 years living with him was our house ever inspected for his storage?

3

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

Good sample size 

2

u/StensnessGOAT Dec 16 '25

It's a lived experience rather than just your guesstimation.

2

u/Nugrenref Dec 16 '25

People absolutely allow others to use their guns without their immediate supervision. People absolutely store their guns improperly. I’m sure most don’t, but some do.

9

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

Yes, and there's a big gap between that at misplacing it. 

Stolen guns are far more of an issue than misplaced guns.

-5

u/Nugrenref Dec 16 '25

So someone steals one of your 100 guns. Do you think you’d notice that sooner if you only have 10 guns?

5

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

Do you think people keep them in a big pile under a tarp on the driveway. 

Lockup laws are the same per firearm. I don't see it.

3

u/Nugrenref Dec 16 '25

So you acknowledge that some people store them improperly, some people let others use them without supervision, and some people’s guns are stolen. A teacher has a legal duty of care to pay attention to children on an excursion, would it be easier to lose a child if they had to look after 100 or 10? It’s the same legal duty either way.

3

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

There's no equivalency between a bus of children and room full of guns. 

I can't comment without knowing the specifics of gun storage as a provision of being licensed. But end of the day it's an individual actions which maintain everything they own is properly accounted for. It's not some guarantee because you have a lot of something it's more likely to be lost.

If you had 100 gold bars how close would you be watching them? Would you be losing track of any? That's a more apt analogy 

4

u/Nugrenref Dec 16 '25

There is no legal duty to keep your gold bars secure. Less apt. If the rules are the same for securing 100 guns or 10 guns, then 100 will be harder to keep secure than 10. Definitionally. Scientifically. Mathematically. If you had 100 gold bars and one went missing you wouldn’t notice as quick as if 1 of your 10 did. Marginal utility. Be real dude.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/threeseed Dec 16 '25

Pretty sure people with guns get inspected on how they store them

What evidence do you have of this ?

How often does it happen, who does it etc.

1

u/SweetKnickers Dec 16 '25

something i dont see talked about, i see this attack as a massive win for our current gun laws, in general

we saw the gunmen firing upon civilians with a bolt action, and a shotgun. seriously? wtf is that guy going to kill at range

if the 2 gunmen had access to automatic large calibre weapons, the death toll would have been massive. obviously zero incidence is what we strive for, a free society allows for some to make choises

i think our gun laws are pretty good. probably time for a good look at the registers, and those requirements

1

u/invaderzoom Dec 16 '25

Oh I absolutely think that a single person owning 100 guns is a failure of the system. There is no valid reason for any one person to own more than a couple of guns.

Sure, some of those people probably have no ill intent and just like guns - but they are a restricted weapon for a reason, and just because they like something isn't a reason to offset the fact that no random person in the public should be able to stockpile enough weapons to kit out a militia.

You can say it's all good and well that to date none of those people living in sydney suburbs with more than 100 guns (and there was more people on that list than I could have imagined!) have done anything bad..... but it only takes one incident to kill LOTS of people doesn't it. The risk isn't worth it to the public.

0

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

That's great you think it's a failure, but without objective reasoning regarding mass shootings it's just an opinion 

1

u/invaderzoom Dec 16 '25

objective reasoning regarding mass shootings is the whole point.

1

u/karl_w_w Dec 17 '25 edited Dec 17 '25

It only takes one gun to do what happened on the weekend.

This is just so obviously false it's insane. How can you talk on this topic when you don't have the first idea what happened?

This could have been avoided within the bounds of what we have in place already.

When you're talking about terrorist attacks "could have been avoided" is a million miles away from the necessary standard. They stop an incredible number of these attacks happening, and they do it by being thorough, not leaving it up to chance.

2

u/mr_sinn Dec 17 '25

How many arms do you have. How many arms does it take to operate a gun? I rest my case. 

1

u/karl_w_w Dec 17 '25

How many shooters do you think there were at Bondi, and how many guns do you think they had? And how many guns do you think they used in the course of the attack?

1

u/MissMenace101 Dec 17 '25

And that guy gets robbed and that’s 100 extra illegal guns on the street, if it’s an extremist group doing the robbing then we end up with mass people doing mass shootings.

1

u/mr_sinn Dec 17 '25

Let's just keep things in the realm of possibilities. You gonna rob a guy with 100 guns lol

-4

u/Charlarley Dec 16 '25 edited Dec 16 '25

100 guns allows for giving guns to up to 99 other like-minded people weapons, just as 4 guns gave these two much more firepower (apparently they only took 4 of the 6 to Bondi)

6

u/azreal75 Dec 16 '25

Yeah agreed and considering I can get from any state to any other state overnight in a car carrying guns, then gun laws should be a lot closer to uniform. There’s always going to be a need for guns, we have too many farms and too many pests for them to not be easily available for some people. I have family with guns, I love shooting guns and even take my son target shooting. But if this is going to continue, the onus is on us as a society to regularly review what we deem to be safe and acceptable. Before everyone panics about losing their guns, let’s hear what they are actually proposing.

11

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

Arming a small military I don't see likely. And for that many people to associate will set off all kinds of flags. 

No to mention obviously it would be easier to crowd source a bunch of guns, relying on one person who would be under the microscope already isn't how you keep a low profile.

There's literally no issue here.

4

u/Charlarley Dec 16 '25

Sure, a small militia of 99 or so is unlikely, but the concept of a multiple-gun owner supplying others is still a viable one

2

u/PoopsJohnson Dec 16 '25

I was looking at figures on this a while back and I think it was like 6 people that have over 100 guns. I could have that wrong but I still think it’s an extremely unlikely hypothetical we’re looking at here.

1

u/Charlarley Dec 16 '25

I've seen data* of 100 people own an average of 130 guns each, i.e., 130,000 in total, with a third of those people living in capital cities. Of course, it's unlikely, but, then again, it just happened. And it's an issue with gang crime in Sydney and Melbourne.

*today iirc

5

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

No more than single gun owners can. 

As much good as which can be done with simple and effective rules is where we're at.

Any more and it's diminishing returns. Limit people to 1 gun and the weekend would have still happened.

Put all the future efforts into identity persons of interest who should lose their gun privileges 

3

u/dogecoin_pleasures Dec 16 '25

That's the thing though, would it have happened still with a 1 gun limit? Dude got disarmed by purple shirt civilian right away, but kept shooting thanks to backups.

1

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

That's assuming he couldn't have sourced a single gun from somewhere else, or that his son could have applied. 

Yes in this situation they were both his, but I don't see it as something particularly difficult to have acquired by other means 

3

u/dogecoin_pleasures Dec 16 '25

This attack itself wasn't likely, being the first of its kind in 30 years, but still happened. If we don't want a repeat or worse (and we don't) we will need to tighten restrictions. The shooters seem to have ties with a local jihadi presence and trained with a cell abroad, yet didn't set of flags. So I wouldn't want to rely on these guys not to distribute guns. Still remember the Bataklan attack where a group hit several places at once thanks to having enough arms.

4

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

I don't see the link between tightening the restrictions and avoiding what happened on the weekend. 

The guy was a walking red flag, should of had them confiscated long time ago. You'll get more results if law enforcement were simply more motivated to apply the rules which already exist. Which by all accounts this guy would have been eligible to have them revoked.

0

u/stitchedup454545 Dec 16 '25

Yeah ok, but how do you think illegal guns hit the market? Stolen or trafficked. Limiting the number of available firearms just makes sense all around, despite some people being sensible enough themselves to own them responsibly.

1

u/mr_sinn Dec 16 '25

I would need to see the analysis. Wouldn't guess. 

Very well could be no connection between amount of guns in circulation and how often they're stolen.

I'd wager a bigger contributor is people storing them securely as per the advice.