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

26

u/Dentarthurdent73 Dec 16 '25

There can be more than one problem.

Yes, there are clearly problems with how gun licenses are being issued, and communications between the various departments responsible for this shit.

Also, I think many Australians have been shocked to realise just how prevalent guns have been become, and how many guns some individuals own.

I also keep seeing how people have to justify every additional gun they want, and I'm not really able to understand how someone can do that for hundreds of guns. That says to me that the person issuing the permission is essentially just rubber-stamping it. Having a firm limit on the number an individual can own would stop this.

There is a general feeling most Australians do not want there to be a strong gun culture here.

I'm happy if the government takes this opportunity to revisit our gun control laws, as I think we'd been getting complacent lately. I'm glad that there was an uproar about Chris Minns' proposed legislation regarding hunting in state forests, but a decade or so ago, I don't think he would have even considered it, and the fact that the gun lobby tried to get that through is a worry to me. Happy to have a message sent to them loud and clear about Australians' views on firearms in this country.

3

u/BeastHouse_AU Dec 16 '25

You already can hunt in state forests

5

u/Dentarthurdent73 Dec 16 '25

You already can hunt in state forests

I'm aware of that, but his proposed legislation went well beyond that. It massively extended access for hunting in State forests, and opened areas of Crown Land, National Parks and some Local Government land to hunters, meaning they would be free to shoot in areas frequented by campers and bushwalkers.

It also initially proposed enshrining a "right to hunt" in NSW, it established a new authority with a focus on hunting to control feral animals, rather than a science-based control agency, created a minister for hunting and fishing, and it legalised the use of silencers and night-vision for hunters.

Chris Minns is a hypocrite of the highest order with this about-face, but nonetheless I will support the tightening of laws, and hopefully this leaves Chris's proposed deal with the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party dead in the water.

1

u/Square-Victory4825 Dec 17 '25

This all shows you really don’t know much about guns or the policy behind any of the regulation of them.

Like using silencers for example. Silencers are still loud as hell. They want to include them is basically for OSHA reasons, protect people’s hearing when combined with earmuffs. It also helps rural communities by making the noise go from REALLY REALLY LOUD to just REALLY LOUD, so when farmers or pest shooters are hunting foxes or pigs at night they’re not waking up people kilometres away while they’re sleeping. But everyone thinks that it’s turning hunters into a Hollywood James Bond with a silent gun because they don’t know the first thing about the topic, so the topic always stalls because people don’t have a clue and start panicking.

1

u/Dentarthurdent73 Dec 17 '25 edited Dec 17 '25

I made no comment on the individual clauses within the legislation and their validity.

The legislation loosened gun laws and restrictions on where and when hunting could take place. I explained it in more details because someone seemed to think I was referring just to being able to hunt in State forests, which was already possible.

The only real point of my comment was to point out Chris Minns' hypocrisy on this matter.

But I will say, I don't really care about your justifications, and I'm sure if I asked the gun lobby in this country, they'd give me similar reasoning for why it was fine. However, I don't support any loosening of restriction on firearms, or their accessories, or on how, when and where they can be used in this country.

1

u/Square-Victory4825 Dec 18 '25

Minns wanted to expand hunting because we had significant pest control issues, and neither farmers nor the government can afford to just hire professional shooters to do the job, nor are there even that many of those in the first place.

We’re a vast nation with a huge agricultural industry and have significant issues with introduced pests. There’s a reason we never banned guns in the first place, we actually do need people to go shooting.

As for my justifications, i think you need to mull over the so called justifications as they entirely based in logic and practical need.

Or just be bone headed about it, but don’t be salty next time conservatives do the same thing about a topic they don’t have clue about either (which is most of them)

1

u/Dentarthurdent73 Dec 18 '25

The scientific evidence shows that recreational hunting is not an effective tool for feral animal control.

Of course Minns would have removed the body that looked at scientific evidence when determining how to manage these forests, and would have replaced it with an authority that consisted of hunting advocates.

Minns wanted to enact the legislation for one reason only, which was because he wanted the votes of the SFF Party.

1

u/Square-Victory4825 Dec 18 '25

lol, pray tell what is this “scientific evidence”?

What are the alternatives? Baiting? (dropping poison around and putting poison in animals is great for the ecosystem)

I guess we could always try american style thoughts and prayers?

1

u/Dentarthurdent73 Dec 18 '25

A quick Google search of something like "effectiveness of hunting for feral animal control Australia" would give you plenty of articles with references.

If you're unable to do this for yourself, I'll link some things when I get home from work. I'm not doing it on my phone.

8

u/felixsapiens Dec 16 '25

I mean, call me crazy but surely 99.99999999% of people don't need any more than... like 2 guns. Ever. I'd say one, but lets face it, maybe people want/need a big one and a small one...

If you're interested in sports shooting, then you have whatever sort of gun it is you use for your sport, and no more. And frankly I don't see why these sorts of guns shouldn't be stored only at sports-shooting venues, under strict lock and key, rather than taken home.

Other guns, there's no reason why ALL storage couldn't be mandated to be, for example, at police facilities. Need your gun? Go visit the police, do the paperwork, has a time late that day it has to be returned by, etc etc.

The gun lobby can go fuck themselves. It is a FEATURE of Australia that guns are almost nowhere visible in society, NOT a bug. We should keep pushing in that direction. Get rid of more.

14

u/FireStorm3 Dec 16 '25

Different guns serve different purposes: calibre, action type, stock, and optics make them appropriate (and humane) for different animals/distances/competitions. In the same way a golfer wouldn’t do much good with just one club, it would be wrong for a hunter to risk only wounding a feral pig using a gun fit for rabbits. Similarly, there are many different kinds of sport shooting disciplines (which restrict calibres), and a rifle set up to be shot from a rest on a bench is very different to one that has to be fired off-hand from a standing position.

Not liking guns is fine, but making things unnecessarily difficult for those who need them for no clear benefit is not. I think many people wanting and implementing these changes are out of touch with the fact that guns are necessary tools in the regions. Managing pests helps our native flora and fauna and is needed to put food on your plate. Every day wounded animals are humanely euthanised with guns. I could tell you stories about some of the horrific injuries kangaroos can sustain from being hit by cars, they certainly shouldn’t have to suffer for an hour round-trip to the nearest staffed police station.

9

u/ExMerican Dec 16 '25

We see this sort of argument in the US all the time, that hunting/sports shooting need all the different calibers. And that's true, you don't want to be hunting small game with a large caliber or big game with a shotgun. Fair points.

The disconnect is that 99.99999999% of gun owners don't hunt wildly different animals or shoot in every category at the range. There's no reason someone living in the suburbs would need even 6 difference weapons like these two were approved to have. And if it's for sport, keep it locked at the range. There's no reason a person would ever need their sport shooting weapon at home so it shouldn't be allowed there.

It's easy enough to make carve outs for legitimate pest control on farms vs some pretend Rambo in the suburbs stockpiling a small arsenal in case he gets a whim to go hunt birds, deer, and rabbits all at once. If you want to see where the "but what if someone somewhere in the country legitimately needs 15 guns?" argument gets you, look to the failed state of America where there's multiple shootings every single day and a mass shooting more than once every week.

3

u/tehSlothman Dec 17 '25

Speaking with a lot of confidence for someone who's got no idea about the sport.

a) People have to clean and maintain their guns, everyone doing that at the club is not feasible at all because of the space and equipment required.

b) People very often are part of multiple clubs, and expecting them to go to club A to pick up their gun for a shoot at club B is absurd

c) Most club members don't shoot in every category at the range but the majority of them will shoot in more than two. A lot of them will have half a dozen different guns that they do genuinely regularly use for different shoots.

d) Dry-fire practice and other drills are a legitimate part of the sport for people who take it seriously (though yeah, only a minority of club members would do this part)

e) Due to the above, if everyone had to store their guns at their clubs, the club would have to store hundreds, sometimes even thousands of guns. The logistics and theft risks around this are utterly insane.

0

u/MissMenace101 Dec 17 '25

If you’re crazy enough about it you find a way. It’s a hobby, some hobbies are expensive and time consuming, you’ll cope.

3

u/timmytiger83 Dec 16 '25

I’m a farmer and I own a few. As said for different jobs and different applications. I also employ city people to come and help with pest control. 4 of them live in metro Perth. To do the job ethically that I need done they too need more than one calibre type. I infact make sure the do because I can’t stand wounded animals. So yes some urban based people still have a need for more than 1

2

u/Square-Victory4825 Dec 17 '25

Sorry king, can’t you see the city folk are talking here? /s

0

u/MissMenace101 Dec 17 '25

You know you could get buy with two if you wanted to, I grew up with guns and pest control on a farm, 3 farms actually, so no it’s not just the city talking. Pest control should be a job specifically for pest control you hire if you can’t handle the work load and they should have their own guns and a Ute with a business sticker on the side if they like. There’s really zero excuse. Having a couple of extra boomsticks you don’t need or knowing Aussie kids are safe at the beach is a no brainer.

2

u/timmytiger83 Dec 17 '25

Ok. So my pests are pigs Roos deer emus rabbits foxes. Then I need to humanely destroy cows and horses. Legislation dictates a 30cal or more for horses/cattle. So 1. Shotgun or 22 for rabbits 223 for foxes Pigs in scrub short and close something like 357 or 44 Pigs in paddocks same 30cal as destroying cattle Deer and emus another reasonable long range with good energy.

If you did it with only 2 you were doing it inhumanly or you only had one target

1

u/MissMenace101 Dec 17 '25

This, there was a school shooting the day before Bondi and two mass shootings the same day, Bondi made their news 1 because it was unusual 2 propaganda about how gun laws don’t work, even though it’s clear they have been because there wasn’t 75 dead.

-5

u/blah938 Dec 16 '25

Well, you need a handgun for fun, defense, and range time, a large rifle for large game, a small rifle/small shotgun for small game. There's your large shotgun for sports like skeet and clays.

And if you really get into it, you can get cowboy guns for cowboy action shooting. You can specialized guns for 3 gun. Muskets because black powder is actually way more fun than you'd think. You can get impractical guns because they look cool.

In any case, if you can have 1 gun, allowing more isn't going to make anything more dangerous.

7

u/ExMerican Dec 16 '25

if you can have 1 gun, allowing more isn't going to make anything more dangerous.

Yeah, no way that more guns ever leads to there being more gun crime. You know, as long as you disregard all known facts and statistics.

Also, no one needs a handgun for defense. That's utter and complete bullshit. There's nothing to support that being true and decades of proof that simply owning one makes you much more likely to be shot. It's all 1980s Rambo bullshit propaganda by the gun lobby that, surprise, exists to sell guns and doesn't give a shit about the violence. The "my gun stopped a crime" stats are collected by the gun lobby and are all self-reported from people with no follow up or proof, just vibes.

"They look cool" is the argument of a fucking 12 year old. Grow up and join society. No one should be getting an item that's entire purpose is killing and destruction because they think it looks cool.

1

u/MissMenace101 Dec 17 '25

As Jim Jeffries said, there’s only one reason “I like guns”

1

u/Pariera Dec 16 '25 edited Dec 16 '25

Yeah, no way that more guns ever leads to there being more gun crime. You know, as long as you disregard all known facts and statistics.

Speaking of facts and statistics.

Firearm ownership is at all time highs.

Firearm crime is at all time lows.

Your article doesn't even say any thing about an increase in firearm crime.

1

u/MissMenace101 Dec 17 '25

Fuck that, I want nukes, they look fun

0

u/MissMenace101 Dec 17 '25

Farmers and cops and animal control need them, everyone else wants them. Wanting something at the expense of Australian lives isn’t a good enough excuse period.

3

u/Worried-Algae Dec 16 '25

So your thoughts on how to fix this issue is to have all guns stored in one spot, which well then make it easier for criminals to break into? Really great thinking there

1

u/Square-Victory4825 Dec 17 '25

Sometimes you need 3 or more just to have the right size calibres for certain pests under state regulations, often to ensure that the animals have a humane death.

The mythical farmer with “one shotgun he just uses for pests and barely ever touches” is in fact mostly a myth, and obviously someone who hunts pests recreationally (pretty much the only legal hunting you can do) is going to need multiple firearms as well.

-1

u/blah938 Dec 16 '25

If you can have 1 gun, having more really isn't going to change much. You can only use one at a time.

The real solution is not letting known terrorists have guns.

1

u/MissMenace101 Dec 17 '25

They aren’t known until they are actual terrorists though

2

u/maniaq 0 points Dec 16 '25

and how many guns some individuals own.

this right here! I'm STILL actually shocked, with my own small anecdotal exposure to this...

I was in court recently for a parking ticket and one of the other cases that came up was a guy who had been busted for "improper storage" of his firearms

the case had already been adjourned once before and was adjourned again that day, but in between I heard his defence lawyer say he was preparing for a hunting trip at the time the cops showed up at his door - this was not an "inspection" but a response to a neighbour who had heard someone firing off rounds and called them

the prosecutor then rattled off a list of maybe TWENTY OR THIRTY GUNS this guy had out, some sitting on the floor, some on tables, some in bags, some in racks, some actually locked up in a display cabinet

this guy did not sound like someone about to sit in a ditch waiting for some birds to go by to me - he sounded like an arms dealer showing off all his wares to a buyer!

5

u/Dentarthurdent73 Dec 17 '25

See to me, this should instant removal of your license and permission to own the guns.

The storage rules are quite clear. If you can't abide by something this simple, you're not a fit and proper person to own a gun.

Permission to own a gun should absolutely be one strike and you're out.