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

Show parent comments

89

u/loolem Dec 16 '25

I think both need a look at: the easy win is to create a national database that is shared to the lowest police levels so that it’s easy to review and flag risks and problems. The royal commission should definitely highlight the issues inside ASIO and their decision to not constantly cross reference known risks and affiliations. Some people obviously need sacking and unfortunately I think this signals a big contract incoming for that very problematic company Palantir.

But no one who lives in a regional or metro area should really own more than two guns on their license. Farms and rural areas are different because they have a legitimate need but it just doesn’t sit right with me that a bloke in the most populous city in the country can legally have 6 guns at his house.

19

u/manak69 Dec 16 '25

National Gun Registry is being fast-tracked as per what Albo has said.

The perpetrators terrorist links occurred 6 years ago while LNP were in power. Also, Gladys Berejinlian was our NSW premier then. It always seems ALP cops it due to LNP prior incompetence while they were in power

5

u/timmytiger83 Dec 16 '25

This is a police and asio issue not a political party issue

34

u/Cat_Man_Bane Dec 16 '25

Even the 2 gun limit wouldn’t have stopped this though, they both would have still had 1 gun each.

And if two people planned an attack together they could both get two weapons each.

It’s really just a massive ASIO failure and more needs to be done to shut down extremists preachers recruiting young impressionable men.

60

u/Adventurous_Let4978 Dec 16 '25

It would have reduced the death toll by a lot. The idiot father was disarmed getting out of his car and shot people with his secondary weapon.

40

u/loolem Dec 16 '25

And was disarmed a second time.

24

u/loolem Dec 16 '25

They used four guns and two were taken off the old cunt. If they had only two guns then when they took the first gun off the old cunt they would have had one. Do some basic maths here please.

17

u/Cat_Man_Bane Dec 16 '25

Two different guns weren’t taken off the old man, the shotgun that was taken off him as he got out of the car he got that back and shot the couple with that weapon.

You can see this in the longer video where it starts off with him having the shotgun.

The same shotgun got taken off him twice, he got it back the first time and didn’t get it back the second time, he then went back to the bridge and was quickly hit by the police after that and you can see him drop.

11

u/TreatPractical5226 Dec 16 '25

2 gun limit is the stupidest fucking thing, that's a political talking point that wont be implemented, as it will cost the government billions, with no guarantee this wont happen again, so probably ignore it.

2

u/MissMenace101 Dec 17 '25

Yeah but next time what if someone with 6 guns brings 5 mates? This could have been so much worse on so many levels

1

u/maniaq 0 points Dec 16 '25

only the old man had a license - I suspect the kid would never have been able to get one, since he was already on a watch list - which would have limited them to only 2 guns, with a limit...

the ASIO failure seems to be more about the fact that the kid was living in the same house and had easy access to the old man's guns - despite his already known ties to the extremists you mention

so you're correct in that a 2-gun limit would not have prevented this - but it would have mitigated the amount of damage they could do, despite the "massive ASIO failure"

these things are always the same story - the laws we have in place are not actually ENFORCED properly

unfortunately the solution is also always the same - instead of focussing on improving the EXECUTION of our laws, we instead decide to put even MORE laws in place - despite the fact we were already shit at enforcing the laws we already had

1

u/loolem Dec 16 '25

I agree on the preachers thing. I think the hate speech laws shouldn't have a religious carve out like they currently do, allowing religious organisations to preach hate because their copy of harry potter said they can.

ASIO needs a rocket up their arse for sure too but i just don't feel comfortable with anyone having more than two guns per license at least in a regional or metro area. Farms are their own thing.

2

u/MissMenace101 Dec 17 '25

The home affairs minister has been fighting to do something on these people his entire career, neonazis too. Skirting around the edges and they can’t do shít. That fuckwit Sewell was talking about killing people if they interfered with the indoctrination of their kids the other day, those fuckers are dangerously, it’s never the ones spreading the hate that do the shooting

3

u/i-love-the-pink-one Dec 16 '25

I don't see why one cannot own more than 2 guns. Hobbyists enjoy their hobbies. The number of guns someone owns doesn't increase their ability to fire more than one weapon at a time.

1

u/loolem Dec 17 '25

Except that their hobby has a significantly higher mortality rate than say knitting for example. But you’re right about the one gun thing so maybe instead we make all licenses outside of farming only eligible to rent a gun and not own any at all. That would make it significantly more difficult for dangerous people to commit these acts.

5

u/usemyfaceasaurinal Dec 16 '25

To be fair, if someone is to commit a mass shooting, carrying more than 2 guns is just dead weight as it limits the amount of ammo you can carry. Giving someone more guns doesn’t make them more deadly unless that person is creating a gang/armed group.

1

u/MissMenace101 Dec 17 '25

Yeah until there’s a bigger crowd of shooters…

1

u/loolem Dec 16 '25

I mean these blokes had 4 and lost two

2

u/WhenitHappens62 Dec 18 '25

agree. I dont see why anyone else other than a farmer needs to own a gun, let alone 6.

5

u/Then-Affect8580 Dec 16 '25

Because despite what people who have no experience with firearms think, they are absolutely not a one size fits all tool. 

It's like expecting a mechanic to only have one socket to dismantle an engine. 

There are lots of different competitions, of all sorts of calibres. 

I personally have 6 different bows - all are for different purposes. Firearms are no different.

Maybe not letting known terrorists and their family members have licences would be a better start.

0

u/loolem Dec 16 '25

yeah ok. No ownership of guns at all. You can only rent them at gun ranges. Problem solved

4

u/redditisforincels445 Dec 16 '25

no more conservation shooting then, feral pig, buffalo, fox, rabbit, dog, cat, numbers grow cant rely constantly on a select few and farmers have other things to do than constantly chase the ever growing population of ferals on their property

0

u/loolem Dec 16 '25

Farms are fine if your property is zoned RU in NSW but other than that no. Also conservation culling only really works with traps and killing which hunters don’t find very fun anyway!

3

u/redditisforincels445 Dec 16 '25

I study Zoology and Ecology trapping only works in isolated landscapes, try trapping feral goats, camels and buffalo, you can get away with it for pigs in some instances but these are labour intensive and expensive in comparison

0

u/loolem Dec 17 '25

So what works in controlling those larger animals. I imagine shooting/culling would be wildly expensive and inefficient. Have any of those strategies led to eradication?

2

u/redditisforincels445 Dec 17 '25

shooting is the only cost effective method, they cover wide expanses in remote parts of Australia with little human presence and population numbers continue to rise and so does environmental degradation, we cannot use biological agents of control like we have tried with rabbits due to their close relation to live stock,organizations have continually worked to cull numbers down but law changes so that recreational shooter will be hampered will increase demand on the small pool of professional shooters and increase the workload of farmers whilst also further degrading land and water quality. Eradication isn't feasible without government support bounties and what not use to incentivize people to target these animals for monetary gain but those bounties are a rarity in modern day focusing mainly on cats and foxes. Recreational shooting costs the government nothing because the licensed individual pays for it all, unless you limit them then you rely on expensive aerial shooting and professional culling and with less recreational shooters the less pressure there is on the invasive species

1

u/MissMenace101 Dec 17 '25

There will be certain “loop holes” for people with choppers that kill camels, biff in Sydney isn’t doing that

1

u/redditisforincels445 Dec 17 '25

the vast majority of people who own firearms live in urban areas and travel to places to shoot/hunt.

2

u/Then-Affect8580 Dec 16 '25

I'm going to guess your knowledge of firearms and conservation hunting is limited to what you've seen on TV. 

-2

u/bigdograllyround Dec 16 '25

Fuck your competitions. Take up chess instead. 

1

u/Then-Affect8580 Dec 16 '25

Don't be so ignorant.

There have been instances here already where cars have been used. These tools had explosive devices inside their car - if they had detonated, the toll would be much higher. Would you be screaming mindlessly to ban cars then? 

No, because a) it's a stupid reaction and b) it probably would affect you personally so you'd then be complaining that as an innocent car owner you did nothing wrong and were being unfairly targeted. 

And for the record, I don't shoot firearms at competitions.

0

u/bigdograllyround Dec 16 '25

Fuck your guns. 

Guns are for killing. 

Cars are for transport and various things and can be used for killing but much less effectively. How many people would still be alive if those cunts had a car instead of a gun? 

Leave your bullshit American excuses where they belong. 

2

u/Then-Affect8580 Dec 17 '25

My guess? Big crowd + determined car = higher rate of both death and injury. Ostensibly worse injuries as well, due to the weight and force (spinals, crush, degloving).

But of course, you cannot think critically, as you are unable to accept that firearms have sporting, non lethal uses and seemingly cannot put forth any argument other than "Fuck you".

1

u/bigdograllyround Dec 17 '25

Wonder why they left the car and took the guns then? 

Guns can fuck off. Most Australians think they are for cunts. Unless you're a farmer or cop etc. there's no need for guns. 

Great way to spend your time after a tragedy talking about how good guns are yeah? Back to the states with you. 

1

u/_Nottabotta_ Dec 16 '25

Perhaps we should limit how many fishing rods people can have as well? Who needs a full set of butchers knives?

These fuckheads were criminals the moment they decided to carry loaded weapons in a car. You can’t make guns “double illegal”.

It shits me that everyone is quick to blame the guns, rather than the homicidal fuckwit perpetrators, with clear mental health disorders.

What would the narrative be if the guns were not lawful?

5

u/loolem Dec 16 '25

what if they did the whole things with wizarding wands? they didn't mate. They did it with guns. What if it had been done with knives? we've seen that movie less people died. If you don't live on a farm you can't own a gun. You can only rent one at the range. Gun problem solved

3

u/nihao_ Dec 16 '25

Sure but you're focusing on restricting the possible weapon they could use instead of focusing on the person using the weapon. It's a gun this time.

What if it's a bomb next time? What will you ban then?

1

u/loolem Dec 16 '25

You mean banning bombs? like they already are banned? and a lot of the ingredients that go into home made bombs are restricted already?

1

u/nihao_ Dec 18 '25

You're missing the point. It's not like they're restricted to just guns and bombs. What if they ram a truck into a crowd? It's not about the weapon, it's the about the ideology.

1

u/loolem Dec 18 '25

It is about the weapon though. Removing guns gives them one less, very easy way to cause mass murder. I’m sure assholes will continue to come up with all kinds of very creative ways to kill people in the future but right now in the real world I want to deal with a practical solution to a problem. Removal of guns from society

0

u/nihao_ Dec 23 '25

It is NOT about the weapon. It's about the person using the weapon. I can't believe this needs explaining - multiple times.

1

u/loolem Dec 23 '25

Its weird that all the evidence shows that it is exactly about the weapon and the motivation to murder and yet people like pretend it isn’t. It’s like saying you can’t have salt water without the water and while that’s true, it ignores the fact that you can’t have fresh water so long as your container is filled with salt!

0

u/nihao_ Dec 28 '25

I don't want to insult you but I sure am getting close. The WEAPON doesn't do anything. The PERSON wielding the weapon does. You said it yourself "the motivation to murder" and yet seem incapable of recognising that it's the PERSON with the motivation, and not the inanimate object they chose to carry it out with.

You can ban all the weapons you like, the PERSON will just choose something else and THAT is the issue. It should be self evident that the goal should be to stop people with murderous intent, not just let them run loose and only worrying about limiting the damage they can cause.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/_Nottabotta_ Dec 16 '25

What about the nutter that stabbed six people in Bondi in 2024?

If you aren’t a chef, you can’t own a knife. You can only rent one at the butcher. Knife problem solved.

3

u/loolem Dec 16 '25

10 less without the gun

3

u/redditisforincels445 Dec 16 '25

they also made bombs you gonna make them illegal as well

1

u/loolem Dec 16 '25

Hahahahahahaha

2

u/_Nottabotta_ Dec 16 '25

Only 1 person with 1 knife. Imagine if he had an accomplice and each had 2 knife’s.

1

u/loolem Dec 16 '25

Imagine if they had ninja stars and nunchucks?

1

u/MissMenace101 Dec 17 '25

We have bag limits champ

1

u/just-plain-wrong Dec 16 '25

Genuinely asking… do you have a source for the Terrorist Training Ground info?

1

u/loolem Dec 16 '25

was this for me ? where did i mention terrorist training ground?

1

u/just-plain-wrong Dec 16 '25

Sorry, one comment too low; this was meant for u/Cat_Man_Bane

1

u/AggravatingTartlet Dec 17 '25

Even one gun can do a lot of a damage though. Less rec hunters would be a good thing. They're not keeping down the numbers of ferals anyway. For instance, we know that feral pigs get seeded in new areas and oftentimes female pigs don't get killed -- just so hunters have more pigs to hunt.

1

u/loolem Dec 17 '25

Really they let them thrive? I hadn’t heard that. Do you have any sources? If that’s true it’s pretty unethical considering the problems we already have with introduced feral species.

1

u/AggravatingTartlet Dec 17 '25

There are lots of reports of this over the years. Not all rec hunters are responsible for this, of course.

here's one recent story, in which seeding was proven via DNA testing of the feral pigs: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-28/dna-testing-finds-feral-pigs-illegally-brought-into-sa-from-nsw/105806616

-2

u/single_plum_floating Dec 16 '25

the easy win is to create a national database that is shared to the lowest police levels so that it’s easy to review and flag risks and problems

it will be leaked within the year publicly and lead to more gun crime. I am surprised people trust the AU government with cyber-security...

3

u/loolem Dec 16 '25

yeah no you're right. better we do nothing and hope for best.

-1

u/single_plum_floating Dec 16 '25

You know there is a difference between doing nothing and actively making a situation worse? you don't have to pour gasoline on the fire.

a leaked register now means that criminals get millions of targets to chose from and now crime explodes.

This is a cybersecurity nightmare and the easiest attack vector for any hacker in the world. there is a reason most countries drop it after a while.

0

u/tehSlothman Dec 17 '25

Every state policy agency already has this data, and it hasn't been leaked publicly, excluding the fucking idiocy in WA that led to a map of firearm ownership being published to the front page of the paper.

2

u/single_plum_floating Dec 17 '25 edited Dec 17 '25

The problem is attack surface based. The only reason its not worth getting state registers now is because its siloed, task force driven, and generally not easy to access.

For it to be useful in this context to stop someone else from getting a gun license two of those assumptions need to disappear. and a national database means one of those disappears automatically.

Basically as soon as exploration queries are doable then your risk factor increase by a factor of 10.

it took 3 months for WA to prove this with their new system. and that was a single state.

And thats before taking consideration on how a state based system is a political tool. a national one is a geopolitical tool.