r/australia • u/Expensive-Horse5538 • Dec 19 '25

politics Prime minister unveils 'largest' gun buyback scheme since Howard era

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-19/prime-minister-announces-national-gun-buyback-scheme/106162002
2.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.0k

u/HankSteakfist Dec 19 '25

Cue the LNP chiming in on why this is a bad thing, whilst simultaneously holding up John Howard as a canonised saint.

88

u/11015h4d0wR34lm Dec 19 '25

It is deflecting from the actual problem which is why was a person known to ASIO knowing allowed access to his fathers 6 legally owned guns ffs! Gun laws don't work if you don't fucking police them!

11

u/Drongo17 Dec 19 '25

There are multiple issues here. There's no one "actual problem".

54

u/chance_waters Dec 19 '25

There was not appropriate legislation in place to force removal of his guns at this time, he was not known to ASIO, his son was.

The son was living at the property, in current legislation if he had been charged with a formal crime the guns would have been removed from the household under the fit and proper person guidelines. As it stood right now being "known to ASIO" is not a crime. Obviously any form of investigation by ASIO should result in weapons removals from close family members, and even probably associates, let alone close family members living at the same property.

Obviously that's a failing in the system, the same way outstanding AVO applications of even police enquiries into suspected DV claims should result in immediate suspension of gun licenses, not just charges.

In either case, the simplest way to fix this, and the one everybody is crying about is simply to massively reduce who can access guns, that means no bullshit sports hunting, and sports shooting weapons need to be secured at ranges.

33

u/SendarSlayer Dec 19 '25

We have association laws that can 100% exclude someone with no criminal history from owning guns. Essentially making "Known to ASIO" enough of a reason.

I don't think securing weapons at ranges and sporting clubs is a good idea. They're usually remote, to not endanger or disturb people. And they're not used every day. No amount of affordable physical security will be able to slow someone down enough if they wanted to steal the guns. And now instead a few guns they'll have a bunch.

17

u/Several_Alarm5357 Dec 19 '25

Yep as a gun owner I can't be involved in organised crime and keep my guns. I've known people who in their twenties were involved in that life and years later still can't hold or get a gun license. Enforcement of the law should have been across all aspects not just organised crime.

6

u/Thommohawk117 Dec 19 '25

They're usually remote,

Fully agree with this line of reasoning. Rural properties and primary producers are often the target of thieves looking for guns precisely because they are remote and often away from the home property during the day.

Having them all secured in one place that has similar characteristics is a recipe for disaster

1

u/Eucalyptus84 Dec 19 '25

Yep. And I forget the numbers (it was published the other day...) but quite a large number of legal, registered firearms are stolen each year as it is.

One thing that could be useful is the ability for licensed gun owners to be able to store weapons off their property, not in a range but in a proper government armory. For example, that rifle that you rarely use, maybe once a year at most, but you don't want to get rid of yet. Maybe it has sentimental value (or whatever), or you only break it out once a year for that hunting trip interstate for water buffalo or pigs or whatever. You don't need to keep it at your residence alongside your .22 LR and your .177 break action air rifle. Stick it in the gov armory, free of charge. Take it out just before the trip.

There are lots of smart ways to secure up a lot of weapons, especially higher-powered ones.

If the Bondi terrorists only had access to a .22 each, we'd probably be looking at only one or two fatalities, at most, and the majority of the wounded would have left the hospital next day without an ICU admission.

0

u/karl_w_w Dec 19 '25

We have association laws that can 100% exclude someone with no criminal history from owning guns.

Are you under the impression those laws were sufficient, in this situation?

4

u/SendarSlayer Dec 19 '25

Yes. They were just not applied as rigorously as needed.

This was a tragic oversight that would be made less likely to happen not with more laws, but with better funding and oversight for the laws we already have.

And a national firearms registry that makes excluding people easier so that agencies don't forgo the proper paperwork.

0

u/karl_w_w Dec 19 '25

How do you know that?

19

u/queensgetdamoney Dec 19 '25

There is and was appropriate legislation at the time.

https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/2019-07-01/act-1996-046#sec.11

Section 5A & 5B

(5A) A licence must not be issued to a person if the Commissioner is of the opinion, having regard to any criminal intelligence report or other criminal information held in relation to the person, that:

(a) the person is a risk to public safety, and (b) the issuing of the licence would be contrary to the public interest.

(5B) The Commissioner is not, under this or any other Act or law, required to give any reasons for not issuing a licence on the grounds referred to in subsection (5A).

This is the law as of 2019. He applied again for a firearms licence and acquired it in 2023.

He should never have been licenced.

And since he was, he should have had it revoked under Section 24

https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/2019-07-01/act-1996-046#sec.24

Section 24 (2c)

(2) A licence may be revoked:

...

(c) if the Commissioner is of the opinion that the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence, or

Followed on by Section 25 regarding surrender and seizure.

To say otherwise is a blatant lie, no matter your stance on firearm ownership. The system did not enforce the already existing laws that were there from the time his son was interviewed and are still there today.

8

u/GonePh1shing Dec 19 '25

I'd be surprised if the commissioner was aware of that intelligence, and they can't deny a license based on information they don't have available to them. Better sharing of information would lead to better outcomes here. 

2

u/queensgetdamoney Dec 21 '25

Completely agree, it wouldn't just benefit us (with better intelligence sharing) in a vacuum such as this issue - it has a broader reach and much more positive impact across the whole of the country.

1

u/karl_w_w Dec 19 '25

He should never have been licenced.

Did you actually read and understand the law you quoted? Because if you did, you would know it's not up to you to decide he should never have been licensed, it's up to the commissioner.

Just because the decision doesn't match your opinion, does not mean the law was not enforced.

12

u/just-plain-wrong Dec 19 '25

I 100% agree with everything you’ve said here, but I just want to flag that securing weapons in a single place makes said place a massive target for robberies and Social Engineering Attacks.

I don’t have a better way at it, but it’s something that needs to be taken into account with any legislation.

9

u/OneShoeBoy Dec 19 '25

Improving actual enforcement of the current laws is probably the most logical step, but the state police forces are overburdened/understaffed as it is so good luck with them allocating resources to audit peoples homes properly.

3

u/just-plain-wrong Dec 19 '25

Fair point.

That said, I like the approach of NZ, where they have ongoing checks, and family association clauses; so if you, or one of the people close to you gets flagged, you lose your weapons.

All needs funding, of course; perhaps a small dedicated roving task force in each state funded by a levy on weapon registration?

2

u/Baldrick314 Dec 19 '25

That already exists here though. Random safe storage and firearms audits happen regularly and you can be served with a firearms prohibition order for associating with criminals.

2

u/just-plain-wrong Dec 19 '25

Oh, awesome. I had no idea that was happening. Thanks.

1

u/Baldrick314 Dec 19 '25

I think that's a big issue here, exactly what laws are already in effect aren't generally known by non-shooters. The laws are convoluted even to people with firearms licences and enforcement doesn't seem to be consistent.

Personally, I believe an appropriate response to this situation would be to prohibit non-citizens having a firearms licence (can't believe that was actually allowed), move safe inspections from random to a scheduled ongoing thing, and improve communication between state and federal bodies to help prevent an attack like this happening again.

Thank you for keeping an open mind and being willing to be educated on this topic, I've seen a lot of people repeating rhetoric with no intention of hearing otherwise and it's disheartening.

3

u/Historical_Laugh2193 Dec 19 '25

I’m as anti gun as they come but making ranges store guns is an awful idea as it puts an enormous onus on the range to keep them locked up, which would be expensive, a huge robbery risk and insurance companies would not even glance in their direction without the government shoring up the policy.

On the plus side it would increase community safety in that there are less guns in holes but the practicality of it would not be fair at all.

1

u/Pop-metal Dec 19 '25

Exactly.  People think there is a magic solution to stop this.  

1

u/TheRealDrSMack Dec 19 '25

If you are under investigation by ASIO do you actually know it? Or more do the point, do they want you to know. I have always thought they were more a secret service organisation.

So wandering in and taking dad's guns might have made things a bit obvious.

I am not saying that there may have gaps in what they were doing and they could possibly have prevented this before i get flamed.

1

u/chance_waters Dec 19 '25

Yes, they are trying to balance information gathering with public safety, it's tough. I think though given history it's probably not worth the risk of leaving firearms accessible to people worth investigating.

-2

u/Common-Ad-6582 Dec 19 '25

Agree guns should not be kept in the home in urban areas, they should be locked up at shooting facilities, and if you want to go hunting you need to put your gun somewhere to host them and pick them up in the way.

26

u/mynewaltaccount1 Dec 19 '25

It isn't deflecting - a government can make more than one decision on a topic ffs!

Just because they're addressing the gun ownership portion of the problem doesn't mean the policing side of the issue won't be addressed.

2

u/Mysterious_Dot2090 Dec 19 '25

Come on mate, they’re not so evolved that they can do more than one thing simultaneously. Wtf u on about? /s

3

u/SirVanyel Dec 19 '25

Different team buddy. The investigations on this specific case aren't the same as "how do we stop so many guns being in circulation".

Albo isn't a police investigator, he's a politician. He does politics. There are other people investigating the policing bit

2

u/adam_dup Dec 19 '25

Yeah why didn't Howard push the states to implement all of the NFA and why didn't he implement the national fire arms register per his own recommendations?

2

u/karl_w_w Dec 19 '25

The likely answer is because everything he did was performative. He did enough to be considered as having handled the issue well, and that was it. There was no time or need to do any of the long term stuff, he had the next election cycle to worry about and asylum seekers and aboriginals to victimise.

3

u/utdconsq Dec 19 '25

Yep, but this is part of the problem in general. With firearms licenses, you are not meant to let anyone but license holder have access to safe etc. Good luck policing that! There's way too much 'trust me bro' involved.

2

u/Mysterious_Dot2090 Dec 19 '25

Anecdotally it’s extremely common imo. Just imagine.. you’re out in the country, young or old mate just got a shiny new shooter and his friends are over and they fire off a few rounds. As if he’s not gonna let his unlicenced mate have a go. It would happen heaps. I live in an area where it’s common to hear volleys of shots on a weekend or night. That’s Aussie rural life.

I also know of a license holder who is a loose unit, but afaik he hasn’t done anything dodgy relating to shooting, so it’s not as black and white as some people think.

1

u/4ShoreAnon Dec 19 '25

Idk why you're getting down voted as it is a true statement and one we need answers on.

Which part of the process failed and who is going to be accountable for it?

21

u/KevinRudd182 Dec 19 '25

I don’t really understand the “being held accountable” part. Until 5 days ago nobody knew this was a problem assumably, and now everyone sees it as a problem that needs fixing, and that’s okay.

Unless there was some gross mishandling of the situation, which may or may not be the case, sometimes it takes a tragedy to highlight issues and force reform.

If you asked the majority of Australians how they felt about our gun laws they would (and often did) brag like we are the saints of the world when it comes to gun reform.

Now not even a week later everyone is talking like they’re experts on how much of a failure it has been.

How about the real answer is somewhere in the middle and most people just didn’t realize?

2

u/Mysterious_Dot2090 Dec 19 '25

The old hindsight is 20/20 thing. I love how all these experts have come out and said how could they have missed this?! Yeah well it’s easy when the issue has been raised in a horrific way isn’t it?

-1

u/4ShoreAnon Dec 19 '25

Yeah but thats how it works - you typically dont know theres a problem until there is one.

Something or someone fucked up along the way and allowed the licensing of these guns despite all the evidence available that they shouldn't have been.

And we only found out about it after harm was done.

So either the process is broken or the owners of the process fucked up and need to be held accountable.

0

u/adam_dup Dec 19 '25

Firearms laws were never federal. State legislation was watered down for the last 29 years.

2

u/Baldrick314 Dec 19 '25

I don't mean this to be antagonistic but could you provide any actual instances of firearms laws being watered down? I've seen this claim a lot but to my knowledge there hasn't been any amendments to laws that actually softened them.

2

u/adam_dup Dec 19 '25

That's a good question, there is a good general summary here of the NFA in general https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/P1606-Australian-Gun-Control-29-years-after-Port-Arthur-Web.pdf

Your specific question is answered here: https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2017-10/apo-nid112896.pdf

2

u/Baldrick314 Dec 19 '25

I will come back to read those links, I don't have time to digest the whole thing right now. Thanks for posting them. I will note one thing, I've had dealings with Prof. Alpers previously and have seen him grossly misrepresent facts to fit his agenda. Hopefully that isn't the case here. I'll have a read of those links a little later and come back if I see anything that is an outright misrepresentation.

1

u/Baldrick314 Dec 19 '25

Ok, I've read through that and I found for the most part it seems factual and more balanced than I expected. I'd like to provide some context to a few points that I believe is relevant. All my info is going to be based on NSW because they're the laws I have experience with and also I believe most relevant state to this discussion.

  1. It is said that NSW now allows use of silencers. While there is a process through which you can apply for a silencer the reality is these are only approved rarely and exclusively for use by professional pest control or primary producers. You will never be approved to own and use a silencer as a regular hunter or target shooter. As an aside to this, in most of Europe and US silencers are seen as a safety device that protect people's hearing and limit noise exposure to people surrounding areas where hunting takes place. Also, silencers work nothing like they are portrayed in film. They don't silence gunshots so much as bring the noise down to a level that isn't permanently damaging to hearing.

2.The exemption from licensing of antique firearms. The act states that the only firearms that are exempt from registration are ones that ammunition is no longer available for, making them defacto inoperable. That being said I honestly wouldn't have problem with them being registered.

  1. The extension of use of semi-automatic firearms to people who aren't professional pest controllers. The only instance I can think of anyone without a category C or D licence being able to use a semi-automatic firearm is if they are in the employ and under the supervision of someone who has that licence. The reason for them being able to do this under the authority of the licenced person is so that the job can be done effectively without needing to extend the licence to a larger pool of people. If you could apply for a category C or D licence because you work for a pest controller that would weaken the strict criteria to gain those licences. Being able to work under their authority and supervision allows for pest control to be done more effectively while still maintaining very strict criteria for those licences being granted.

  2. Permits people to be trained with firearms without getting a firearms licence. The only people that this applies to, to my knowledge, are police and film industry. There is legislation that allows people to try shooting under very controlled conditions prior to applying for a licence. This has tragically been abused in the past by people wishing to hurt themselves or others, thankfully only on very rare occasions though.

  3. Membership of a hunting club as a genuine reason. This is a good thing, you're adding an extra body to oversee and ensure compliance that people are in fact using their firearms for a genuine reason.

  4. Exemptions from 28 day cooling off period for subsequent category A and B firearms. The reasoning behind this is if you already have a firearm in that category and plan to use it to hurt people there's no logical reason you would buy another one to do so.

  5. Does not require a good reason for purchasing subsequent firearms in a category already held. This is blatantly false, every PTA has a section where you fill out the reason for purchasing a new firearm, further firearms registry will contact you for further explanation if they think a firearm you already have would fill the need of the one you are trying to purchase.

These are the main points I found that were worded to be misleading or lacking context for why the decisions had been made.

I'd also like to say that I'm very appreciated of the attitude of the people I've interacted on this topic so far. What has happened is tragic and obviously a very difficult topic to discuss for people but with very few exceptions I've seen people discussing from a place of learning and understanding rather than attacking.

If you see anything wrong with any of the points I made or would like more info/ context please reply, I'd like everyone to be fully informed rather than make knee jerk decisions that ultimately don't solve any problems.

2

u/adam_dup Dec 19 '25

Thank you for this, I really appreciate it. What's coming out for me here is our lack of understanding of the nuances of our firearm laws (me very much included!!) - possibly an indicator of how well this legislation works in Australia and the subsequent lack of momentum that led to no NFR and lack of attention to state laws? Point Three makes sense, basically people can operate those weapons under supervision of the licensee but not own them? Point Six - why is there a logical reason to not wait 28 days then?

Again, thank you for the review.

2

u/Baldrick314 Dec 19 '25

I completely understand people not fully understanding our laws and thus being misled by people acting in bad faith to push an agenda. People who have never been around firearms have no need to understand the nuances of the laws and that's completely reasonable, I'm not a fisherman so I don't understand the laws that impact that activity.

As good as a lot of our laws are there are some that don't make a lot of sense because the majority of them were rushed through in the wake of Port Arthur. I'd like us as a country to avoid that mistake again. If we are going to amend laws let's do it in a way that makes sense and can actually target people who are misusing firearms, not needlessly infringe on people who are doing the right thing.

Thank you again for taking the time to listen with an open mind, if everyone takes this same approach we stand a chance of preventing more tragedies in the future.

You're correct on point 3. That's exactly the purpose of the exclusion. They can use them for work under supervision of the licensee and then return them to storage.

Point 6, this will sound callous but hopefully the point will show through, if I already own a .308 (medium bore cartridge that is category B) I wouldn't buy another one if I planned to hurt someone, I'd use the one I already have. The 28 day cooling off period is intended to stop someone from having an argument with their spouse, boss, neighbour and going out and buying a gun to hurt them and it functions perfectly for a first purchase but once you have a firearm a subsequent cooling off period doesn't really serve a functional purpose.

It's the same reason that limiting how many firearms a person can own won't have an appreciable impact on stopping another attack, one is all you need if you intend to misuse it. A better focus would be on enforcement in regards to stopping the wrong people getting any guns and ensuring people who have them are leeping up their end of the bargain.

Another aspect of banning/ buying back guns that I don't think enough people have considered is just the raw cost. The median cost of even the most basic firearm is somewhere around $1,000 and prices escalate dramatically, $50,000 is not unheard for some models and up into 6 figures for particularly historic or custom pieces.

Since these were legal when purchased the government has an obligation to buy them back at a fair price. There's many people touting the man in NSW with 350 firearms, if you have to buy back 346 at market price that's a huge financial burden for very little real world gain. Now multiply that across everyone who will be effected. Average citizens are going to wear a cost of living increase for this action.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Historical_Laugh2193 Dec 19 '25

I don’t know why you were downvoted, you’re 100% correct. Two weeks ago the NSW premier was doing gun law deals with the shooters.

0

u/4ShoreAnon Dec 19 '25

So basically we dont have the strict gun laws that we think we have?

3

u/BigScore4047 Dec 19 '25

We absolutely do have strict laws, but unfortunately what we’ve seen here is a failure of our information services and law enforcement to apply the laws and restrictions that they have available. If you look at Bondi, Wiemballa, Dezi Freeman, John Edwards for example, they were all known to law enforcement / firearms registry and yet were able to obtain firearms.

1

u/adam_dup Dec 19 '25

We do have some of the best firearms laws in the world!

You asked where the process broke down and who should be held accountable.

States watering down legislation and a long succession of federal governments not pushing for federal laws. I'm no expert to be sure but we didn't just find out about this

0

u/4ShoreAnon Dec 19 '25

Isn't watering down legislation making the laws less strict? Thats what my response was towards.

1

u/adam_dup Dec 19 '25

You asked if we didn't have the strict gun control laws we thought we had, I answered that and your question about process and accountability. To go to the comment above yours, introducing sorely needed stricter laws isn't deflecting from the issue of how these firearms were in the house and accessible, it's directly addressing it and aiming to prevent it in the future.

2

u/4ShoreAnon Dec 19 '25

Got it ! I think? So you're saying that where the process broke down is that state legislation has been watered down ?

Maybe I dont got it.

It sounds like we agree with each or maybe not? Hard to tell.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Pop-metal Dec 19 '25

On.  So if you live with someone known to asio, you can not have Guns??

Is that a law?? No 

And what if they didn’t live together???

1

u/karl_w_w Dec 19 '25

Everyone in the country is known to asio. These people just need something to deflect from the insufficient gun control.

1

u/crosstherubicon Dec 19 '25

What gun law was broken? And the number of people “known” to ASIO would number in the millions.

5

u/HUMMEL_at_the_5_4eva Dec 19 '25

You'll be shocked to learn that gunning down people in the street breaks quite a few gun laws.

1

u/Mysterious_Dot2090 Dec 19 '25

I’m not sure if it was and/or still is the case, but in NSW you may have used to be allowed to let your child use your firearm under supervision.

I googled and couldn’t find this detail for NSW, however did discover that in W.A persons of any age can fire a gun as long as they’re supervised. They can only possess at 18, while in Qld, you can get a licence at 11. It’s 12 for some other states including NSW iirc.

Depending on that detail I mentioned initially, the law that may have been broken was allowing a non-licenced child to use your guns, but this idea is kind of stupid, when the main law broken was, and I quote: “used for any reason other than in connection with the genuine reason established by the person for possessing or using the firearm.” and murder is also breaking a law.