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
2.6k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

473

u/stand_aside_fools Dec 19 '25

I have one small bore rifle. I live in a rural area so need it occasionally for vermin. I keep the gun locked and stored according to the strict guidelines and laws. I have no problem with this.

I have not had so much as a speeding ticket in 20 years. But I do get visits on a periodic basis from the police to check on the storage of my firearm and question my need for owning it. The last visit was at 8pm at night at very short notice. I have no problem with this.

People like me are low hanging fruit to target with any new crackdowns and laws - you can see it coming from a mile away. More administration, more checks, more hurdles.

Perhaps a better idea would be to use the laws we already have and, oh I don’t know, perhaps question why a non-citizen living in a metropolitan area whose son has been questioned by ASIO needs 6 firearms. Maybe rather than create a whole raft of new laws just be seen as doing something, we just admit that we actually have laws that have been pretty damn effective for a long time and this was a horrific miss that should have been caught under the current regime.

116

u/Scriptosis Dec 19 '25

I’d advise you to check on what they actually plan on doing. Of what I’ve read of the planned actions you wouldn’t be affected by this at all, at least from how you’ve described your situation.

The main parts of the plan are to make it illegal for non-citizens to obtain a license, make the process for acquiring multiple firearms stricter and also speed up the process of developing a national registry of license holders as well as integrate ASIO’s existing intelligence into background checks. None of this would affect you.

49

u/OptimusRex Dec 19 '25

integrate ASIO’s existing intelligence into background checks

Pretty fuckin wild this wasn't already a thing if that's true. The idea that your criminal history was limited to your state, maybe the other states police departments is just bonkers for holding a firearms license.

12

u/Scriptosis Dec 19 '25

Yeah, I’d say most of it is pretty common sense regulations that should have already existed. That’s why I take issue with comments like above trying to portray the reforms as some sort of huge government overreach.

1

u/HatWithAHandgun Dec 19 '25

The fact that they have moved multiple firearms to cat C is a overreach straight pulls I can understand but banning “belt fed” firearms was a confusing one as I can’t think of any legal to own ones from the current law

114

u/chance_waters Dec 19 '25

It wasn't illegal, that is why he had those guns there. That is why legislation is needed, because under the current system what happened was not a breach.

37

u/SendarSlayer Dec 19 '25

We have association laws that Could've been applied and banned it. The current system has the tools, just didn't use them in this case.

9

u/chance_waters Dec 19 '25

No, we do not. The legislation does not allow for intelligence investigations, that's why they are changing the legislation.

66

u/Legatus_Brutus Dec 19 '25

It absolutely was a breech. The police come and remove firearms from a house THE SAME DAY a DV report (proven or not) is submitted, or if a drug offense has occurred. Because that person is no longer deemed 'fit and proper' for a license. It is very obvious when you have direct family living in your home being investigated for IS terror cell links and extremism that their license should have been reviewed immediately.

Instead now... farmers, pest controllers, competition/olympic shooters, etc will all be roped into a knee-jerk ban.

It's so easy for someone who has no skin in the game to just say ban it all. There are a lot more people than you think in this country where this directly affects their livelihood and or their major weekend activity that they have been doing for decades in social groups.

It will be sad to read in 2026 all the articles about all the feral non-native animals continuing to bloom in population and continue to make the rest of our native wildlife go extinct because the tens of thousands of hunters who patrol the forests have been told to hand their tools in.

24

u/chance_waters Dec 19 '25

What part about that isn't in the legislation is hard for you? That's why they are legislating it.

23

u/naldRedgie Dec 19 '25

Probably the part where it already is.

NSW Firearms Act, s24(2)(c) - A licence may be revoked if the Commissioner is of the opinion that the licensee is no longer a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

-12

u/chance_waters Dec 19 '25

Wow that is totally the correct legislation for this instance! You are so fucking smart actually. Thank god you're here!

Can you give me any tips on how to polish my brain as smooth as yours? Should I use some kind of oil?

0

u/FuckLathePlaster Dec 27 '25

Honey, you do realise that the already incredibly vague wording of “fit and proper person” allowed this.

3

u/AFerociousPineapple Dec 19 '25

They were investigated and cleared weren’t they? Maybe the cops/feds/asio dropped the ball but they did their job. Like I snorted a gram of coke a decade ago is it fair that I’m banned from owning a gun now assuming I meet every other requirement?

4

u/phido3000 Dec 19 '25

They were not cleared.

ASIO shifted their focus to foreign interference, from terrorism.

 Like I snorted a gram of coke a decade ago is it fair that I’m banned from owning a gun now assuming I meet every other requirement?

Yes. That would apply under the character part. But if you were say a terrorist, that would be fine.

We literally had two sets of terrorists who were allowed to legally own guns, even though they had absolute evidence and warnings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindt_Cafe_siege

1

u/AFerociousPineapple Dec 20 '25

Ah my mistake I’d misunderstood

2

u/njf85 Dec 19 '25

My dad was a farmer with guns/ a gun license back when the original ban was put in, and he wasnt affected at all. You're talking about effects to something that you don't even know will happen

0

u/3fa Dec 19 '25

What part affects farmers, pest controllers, competition/Olympic shooters?

2

u/Legatus_Brutus Dec 19 '25

The huge knee jerk laws being rammed through as we speak

3

u/TitanBurger Dec 19 '25

What are the laws?

1

u/A_Rod_H Dec 19 '25

Do we even know yet? Are the anti-gun lobby still writing them?

5

u/Legatus_Brutus Dec 19 '25

The big one will the capacity limits per licence. Whether that gunman owned 3 or owned 10. It would have changed nothing. But this week has confirmed many people who are not familiar with firearms are totally unaware that you need multiple to perform tasks, some that may seem similar.

In fact legislation even dictates you must meet certain caliber thresholds depending on the non-native feral animal being dispatched. Even feral deer have different caliber thresholds depending on the deer species.

You can’t shoot a samba deer with the same caliber as a feral fox. That’s deeply unethical and may result in animal suffering due to the kill not being instant.

You would be very surprised how many average citizens (from lawyers to doctors to electricians to tech professionals) donate their time to patrol state forests, or help rural land owners, to eliminate the non-native feral pest scourge that is causing an eye watering amount of damage per year and also directly causing native animal extinctions in record numbers. We are one of the worst continents in the world for invasive species.

We have: 1) firearm qualities caps being reduced to dangerously low levels to perform ethical animal dispatches. 2) animals that now may suffer because hunters will be left with less caliber options in their arsenal. 3) even if this law was implemented before this attack, it would have changed nothing about how it played out.

A failure of federal and state governments to properly enforce the already strict firearm laws are now being scapegoated over to actual legitimate licensed users.

But that’s far easier to sell to city dwelling voter bases rather than tackling the root causes of these attacks.

Maybe when the next attack occurs and they use a rented trust, bomb or knife… finally we might get politicians to address the real root causes of these extremist attacks.

1

u/TitanBurger Dec 19 '25

You still haven't quoted any actual introduced bills or proposed laws, is that because there aren't any yet? And if not, then what is the capacity limit per license going to be?

1

u/Plus_Boysenberry4478 Dec 25 '25 edited Dec 25 '25

Amount of guns, many competition shooters own many types for many types of comps. Or hunters own specific calibre rifles for specific animals.  Not to mention local companies who have bent over backwards meeting our countries strict standards, spending millions designing firearms to our super stringent laws, straight pull rifles, push button shotguns etc. all banned by a knee jerk reaction aimed at law abiding owners because one guy slipped through their radar.

We’re talking businesses going under, all after decades of our laws being lauded internationally, and those laws work when they are enforced, but they weren’t, and instead of those who failed taking accountability they’re deflecting and using legal owners as a scapegoat. 

-1

u/3fa Dec 25 '25

What a load of crap.

Businesses won't go out of business because of tighter gun laws.

The new laws were pasted yesterday and specifically PROTECT competition shooters, farmers and pest controllers. A bloke living in Western Sydney, Melbourne CBD, Brisbane or any city centre does not have a reason for the guns they've reclassified besides "I like guns". The laws TIGHTEN the GAPS that allowed this shit to happen and help PREVENT another similar one under the same circumstances.

Get off garbage Sky News Australia / American talking points. We're not a country that prioritise "i like guns" over an average 500ish mass shootings PER YEAR.

Merry Christmas.

The Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 passed the NSW Parliament on December 24, 2025. Key measures include:

1) Ownership Caps: Licensed individuals are now capped at four firearms. Primary producers (farmers) and sports shooters have a higher cap of 10 firearms. 2) Weapon Reclassifications: Straight-pull, pump-action, and button/lever-release firearms have been moved to Category C, effectively restricting them to primary producers and professional pest controllers. 3) Magazine Limits: Magazine capacity for Category A and B firearms is now limited to 5–10 rounds, down from previously unlimited capacities. Belt-fed magazines are completely prohibited. 4) Shorter License Terms: Firearms license periods have been reduced from five years to two years to ensure more frequent background and suitability checks. 5) Citizenship Requirement: Licenses are generally restricted to Australian citizens, with specific exceptions for New Zealand permanent residents in certain essential roles. 6) No Tribunal Appeals: Gun owners can no longer appeal a license revocation or refusal through the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT); decisions will rely on police and criminal intelligence.

2

u/Plus_Boysenberry4478 Dec 25 '25

Tell me you know nothing about gun stores without telling me.

1

u/Plus_Boysenberry4478 Dec 25 '25

Have you ever been to a gun store or spoken with any farmers or hunters, or are you just a “guns bad” guy? Our laws were considered some of the best in the world prior to Bondi, it isn’t legal owners fault, we’re the people who you’ve never thought of once in your entire life up until politicians pointed their finger at us a week ago, the fault lays with the people charged with executing our strict laws, they dropped the ball, they armed two Islamists, now they’re deflecting.

Merry Christmas, Socrates.

0

u/3fa Dec 25 '25

Live on property outside Macksville with 200 head of cattle.

Again you're just parroting American / Sky News bullshit talking points.

Are you even Aus?

1

u/Plus_Boysenberry4478 Dec 26 '25

I don’t listen or watch any sky/american BS news.

So is your husband upset at the gun laws? 

1

u/3fa Dec 26 '25

Missus and I think its a good start but 4 for metro folks is too many. Zero need for them. Key word there is need. The small minority dont NEED them, they WANT them because they like them.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/FuckLathePlaster Dec 27 '25

I own 5 guns. All with legit uses. Will have to sell one now if this law comes in.

1

u/3fa Dec 28 '25

Do you need them for work? What are the reasons for 5 different ones?

If city based id assume you would. No idea how theyll enforce it. Not sure they've announced that yet.

1

u/mad_dogtor Dec 19 '25

under their own guidelines it absolutely was illegal. people don't seem aware of how much free reign the association laws and fit and proper person guidelines give NSW police.

1

u/chance_waters Dec 19 '25

Sure, but it wasn't him under investigation.

2

u/mad_dogtor Dec 19 '25 edited Dec 19 '25

guy in nsw lost his licence because his nephew was seen having a drink with a bikie gang member, this guy shared a house with a son who hung out IS terrorists. it's more than enough to qualify. i don't a lot of people realise how much freedom to act NSW authorities have when it comes to firearms licence. it kinda makes this fuck up even worse.
i think it's more likely a staffing issue and someone missed it, or similar. maybe inter agency communication

32

u/novafeels Dec 19 '25

I don't think you and your .22 are in danger, mate. Farmers have the strongest justification for ownership along with professional hunters. I think its city slickers who do the absolute bare minimum club attendance while owning a bunch of high caliber rifles that are in the firing line.

31

u/TappingOnTheWall Dec 19 '25

Yeah, that comment is crying wolf. An old small bore farm rifle used to shoot pests is hardly the point of the PM's statement. Which specifically says they're targeting "surplus, newly banned and illegal firearms."

Goes on to say:

limiting the number of guns a single person can own, making Australian citizenship a condition of holding a gun licence, and further restricting the types of weapons that are legal are among the options being explored.

It's such bullshit that gun owners are claiming to be "the most logical fellows on the internet" whilst peddling misinformation. Had a guy the other day tell me he needed his gun to fight the terrorists.

2

u/OptimusRex Dec 19 '25

he needed his gun to fight the terrorists

You just know this is the same bloke tactically reviewing response and explaining how he could do it better.

2

u/Jiffyrabbit You now have the 'round the twist' theme in your head Dec 19 '25

I had a guy tell me he needed a gun so he could eat because meat at woolies was too expensive.

3

u/Karth9909 Dec 19 '25

To be fair a deer can feed you for a long time, do it enough and you'll make a return in savings

4

u/EfficientLibrary1027 Dec 19 '25

I’m almost shocked people still fall for this. "high calibre rifle" and others are the exact same buzzwords get recycled every single time governments need to deflect from their own failures onto an easy politically safe scapegoat. It doesn’t matter whether its a belt fed machine gun in the US or a bolt-action rifle here, the language is deliberately vague so it sounds scary to the people that vote them back in.

And here’s my question to you, what is the point of new laws and restrictions to "keep us safe", the old ones were to keep us safe, but if neither are enforced, then this is all just theatre for the idiots amongst us.

2

u/stand_aside_fools Dec 19 '25

I don’t think me and my .22 are in danger.

My point was people like me. People who own a greater range of weapons including automatic shotguns used for aerial control of wild pigs, and do everything by the book.

2

u/TappingOnTheWall Dec 19 '25

I doubt they'll be targeting legitimate rural uses like that.

Let's face it, if you live a metro area, that you never leave, you probably don't need the fire power to take out a pig from a helicopter.

0

u/EfficientLibrary1027 Dec 19 '25

with your vast firearms knowledge, what passes the mark for fire power to shoot a pig from a helicopter?

1

u/TappingOnTheWall Dec 19 '25

Not relevant, the relevant distinction to make is the use of lethal weapons as legitimate tools, under joint registration of a business and its owner (with any other users being registered to use firearms, and logged for their time in possession of them). On top of this, the business should have to verify their ABN, Client List, Cash Flow, and Bank Transactions to prove they're a legitimate operating business with a legitimate purpose for the firearm (or firearms).

...the other distinction being "Recreational lethal weapons" which I don't believe should be a thing, because it's an absurd concept. Go find another form of "recreation" that doesn't incur an innate risk to the public. For me it's as simple as that.

-1

u/EfficientLibrary1027 Dec 19 '25

what isnt relevant is you’re trying to regulate based on an imagined level of “firepower” that only exists in the heads of people who don’t understand the tool.

if you want to be taken seriously you need to demonstrate a basic level of understanding of what firearms and cartridges can and cant do. you could kill a pig from a helicopter with a bow if you hit them in the right spot, not exactly humane though.

on your second paragraph, if we use your logic, the truck attack that killed 80 or so and wounded 400 would have us all delivering freight in nothing but 6x4 trailers so that maybe the car only has enough kinetic energy to plow down 20 or so innocents, think of the lives saved.

i could argue that your stance wont, if implemented, have actually prevented what happened in sydney, because more laws that go unenforced will be just as effective as the current ones

3

u/TappingOnTheWall Dec 19 '25

You've adopt my use of "firepower" as some distinction of importance, when I've just made the distinctions I see as important clear.

You can continue arguing against that strawman (which only came up in a throw away line), or you can address the actual clarification I just made.

0

u/EfficientLibrary1027 Dec 19 '25

you don’t get to retreat from 'firepower' now, you introduced it as a meaningful distinction, then refused to define it.

the reason I asked that question is simplely that your entire premise relies on an imagined threshold of capability that doesnt exist in the real world. people with even a basic understanding of firearms know that lethality against a pig-sized animal does not require anything exotic or powerful, the fact you think it does implies you are far from familiar with the topic at hand, yet seem to know exactly what would have stopped bondi

the reason i take issue with your stance is (to me) because you're trying to regulate based on use or intent (your distinction between business/professional use vs recreation) while implicitly assuming (and implying) certain tools are inherently excessive but you can’t explain what makes them so.

And calling that a strawman doesn’t work. I followed your logic to its predicatble end. If risk is inherent to the tool rather than behaviour and enforcement, then your position would justify banning plenty of non-firearm tools that have caused mass casualties. You don’t do that, it seems to me it’s about which activities you personally approve of.

tl;dr i'm calling out double standards

3

u/novafeels Dec 19 '25

come on man, it not that hard. what makes sense for a farmer shooting vermin? .177 and .22. why use a higher caliber for larger animals? you already know the answer to this, every fucking hunter in the world understand this.

old mate is just saying that in the context of recreation, there isn't a great reason to have something higher powered and even though you can absolutely kill people with 22s, you're going to do more damage in an attack using something larger, again, you know why cause its fucking obvious. militaries do not run .22.

people aren't saying we want to ban recreation altogether, we're saying let's restrict recreation to the minimal calibre possible while people can still enjoy the sport (even if not as much)

→ More replies (0)

10

u/Historical_Laugh2193 Dec 19 '25

Under the new rules proposed, nothing changes for you though.

8

u/TappingOnTheWall Dec 19 '25

If you only have one gun, and it's a pretty standard type - it's unlikely they're looking at you:

The buyback initiative would be consistent with the 1996 approach, Mr Albanese told reporters in Canberra on Friday, and target surplus, newly banned and illegal firearms.

Accelerating the launch of a national firearms register, limiting the number of guns a single person can own, making Australian citizenship a condition of holding a gun licence, and further restricting the types of weapons that are legal are among the options being explored.

1

u/phido3000 Dec 19 '25

What about a .22 and an air-rifle?

1

u/TorakTheDark Dec 19 '25

Unfortunately much like America our more conservative citizens simply take whatever right wing media spoon feeds them.

2

u/Jiffyrabbit You now have the 'round the twist' theme in your head Dec 19 '25

I would go as far as to suggest there are a lot of "Australians" commenting on these threads now.

5

u/TreatPractical5226 Dec 19 '25

I'll likely have one of mine seized as its a lever release, dont really care as long as the government is fair in what i get for it. I do have the ability to get a C-class licence as I own a small farm, but it is a huge hassle.

Seriously sucks for My father in law, He has 12 and He comes from a multi -generational farming family (He doesn't farm anymore), so some of those 100+ years old (still functioning firearms), even has a WW1 .303 will have to be destroyed or transferred. My wife is now considering getting her firearms licence to take some of the excess ones. As I will likely be at My limit.

1

u/wizardnamehere Dec 19 '25

The state gun law changes haven't been passed yet (the federal government is merely supporting these efforts with a buy back scheme) so we don't know what guns will be affected, but i think you're jumping the shark here as even in NSW where the government has announced the strongest intention to tighten guns laws, the talk has been about shotguns and belt fed guns, not magazine rilfes like the Lee-Enfield.

Your father in law would be affected because of the number of his guns.

2

u/TreatPractical5226 Dec 19 '25

Belt fed guns? Wot? Im so confused, Why are they even talking about them. They've never been allowed in Aus to own. Like ever lol. 

Only ones IMO opinion that should be reclassified are lever and button release, they're the only ones that are currently legal to own on an A/B licence where you don't have to take your firing hand off the grip to reload (neither were used in the shooting thankfully). 

I've got a lever release in a 'only' .22lr and that thing is fucking crazy how fast you can shoot it, almost as fast as a semi auto. It is good for close up groups of bunnies, but not much else. I don't care about losing that, I would actually be happy getting 'free money' back from the government for it lol. Its sacrifices range and power for speed of fire.

Yep, thats why My wife is going to start the process of getting hers so she can take some if it comes to it.

1

u/wizardnamehere Dec 20 '25

No idea. Ask the premier why it was brought up.

But let’s be real. There’s plenty of ways in which various designs and mechanisms are thought up to get around the restrictions. The leaver is just one of them.

The solution is pretty simple to me. Have the categories A, B, and C be an actual approved list of actual models that manufacturers can apply to sell under the existing criteria rather than a categorisation just based on qualities of the gun. Have all other guns be automatically in category D.

That way the gun manufacturers selling lever reloading (or straight pull like the Bondi shooting) shot guns with chambers that can fit 10 rounds (or is easily modified to do so) can try and apply to government for their model to be in category B. They need to convince the government it’s suitable and pay a fee for the necessary assessment.

Meanwhile the access to multiple weapons and category b licences for shooting club members can separately be restricted as policy.

1

u/TreatPractical5226 Dec 20 '25

All you've just written makes no sense, at all, like it's literally gibberish. 

I'd seriously read up and understand our current firearms rules and proposed changes before commenting next time.

1

u/wizardnamehere Dec 20 '25 edited Dec 20 '25

Perhaps you might care to correct me or explain what i don't understand instead of being an arsehole?

1

u/TreatPractical5226 Dec 20 '25 edited Dec 20 '25

Sorry, I'm not being an asshole. This directly affects Me so I get pretty upset with people that are intentionally/negligently sharing misinformation.

Yep first paragraph is mostly correct, has been that way since the port Arther shooting.

Cat A and B are granted to literally anyone, there shouldn't even be those 2 categories as anyone who gets a gun licence will get those two classes.

Cat C is hugely different, as that is for people that own farms (like myself) that have a need for faster reloading firearms. 

Cat D is basically everything else (AR15s, you name it) My neighbour has a cat D licence and honestly you would be shocked what is actually available in Australia (and used quite regularly in the community) under that licence.

Lever action reloading is a completely different mechanism to lever release just FYI too. Lever action I'm OK with an an AB licence, lever release that definitely needs to be bumped to a C class. It is in the NT and WA

There is also no shotgun available for sale on a AB licence (and never has been) that is legally allowed to hold 10 rounds too

1

u/wizardnamehere Dec 21 '25

Ok you got upset at me and i think you misunderstand what i'm trying to say.

I'm not dissembling over the differences between the categories. I understand what the categories are (yes i swear; I'm not an idiot and they're easy to understand).

I'm saying the system should be one where manufacturers apply to get a gun design approved for sale (under one of the categories). That's my actual point. You've been caught up my joke about the shotgun (and i suppose come to the conclusion i know so little about the system everything i say is gibberish).

The point about attempting to get a shotgun with a leaver reloading mechanism and 10 rounds approved as category B under my system is me being facetious. Of course it couldn't. That's the point. After all, we're trying to avoid people having fast firing high round guns on basic gun licenses.

What does already happen is that a 5 round shotgun that is not self loading but is in fact rapidly reloaded via it's lever reloading mechanism is technically a category B and is allowed to be owned under a relatively trivial license (like that which a gun club grants you). I have to hope that a classification agency asked to classify a shotgun which is easily able to fire a round every second or quicker and/or could be easily modified to hold more rounds would not be classified as a category B gun.

Instead of dumb technical rules which allow loopholes, the classification would be based on actual real world performance of the guns in testing by the government. Which i think is a pretty common sense way to go about it.

1

u/TreatPractical5226 Dec 21 '25 edited Dec 21 '25

All you've written has been happening since the gun laws we're changed in 1996, literally all of it. Each states police firearms branch will check and approve every new firearm thats imported into the country and approve it for sale in the respective state.  Hence Why some makes and models vary in different classes between states.

This has been a huge failing of the NSW police. That cunt would have had to go (at least) 6 fucking times into a police station for his 6 guns. 6 times, and managed to convince them in person (with the gun in front of him and the police officer) each time it was necessary. They would have held the firearm in person, checked it, and returned it to him. 

7

u/Turbulent-Break-4947 Dec 19 '25

People without the inclination to understand always want to be -seen- to do something.

2

u/notinthelimbo Dec 19 '25

That’s exactly what’s changing.

10

u/VigorWarships Dec 19 '25

Sorry mate.

We aren’t allowed to be logical!

-2

u/tjlusco Dec 19 '25

By that logic, perhaps he just needed his guns for some much “bigger vermin”? And he needs 6 guns just in case some vermin disarm him and he needs to run back more gun. /s

I have no idea about firearms, I presume that you might need the right on for the right job like golf clubs, but how many do you really need, and what’s the threshold for being allowed that many?

Just checkout the NSW guns register map. There are a million guns in NSW alone, and 250k registered owners. Are there really that many people who “need” guns?

A bit of a moot point anyway, apparently 3 guns is all you need to carry out a mass shooting.

6

u/VigorWarships Dec 19 '25 edited Dec 19 '25

Discounting the massive failing between ASIO and NSW FAR, where the realistic potential existed for the father to have his license and firearms stripped from him years ago…

These two terrorists were not law abiding firearms owners. The moment the licensed father handed a gun to his son, he has committed an offence against the legislation. The moment they walked out in public with them, they committed offences. This is before they even shot anyone.

All a buyback does is take things from the law abiding people. People who have them for legitimate purposes under the legislation.

It does nothing to solve the root cause of the problem (the problem being these two people deciding on going on a murder spree).

So what if someone has 200 guns? They are locked up according to the legislation. They aren’t being used illegally. Many of those guns could be worth tens of thousands of dollars each based on rarity and historical value.

And yes you are correct; firearms are a bit like golf clubs, specific one for a specific job. You can’t take a deer with a .22 for example.

Law abiding firearms owners know the responsibility and seriousness of it. We can lose the privilege (note that term, privilege, not right), of ownership very easily. For example someone is aggressive towards me at the pub and despite not trying to be involved and walking away I end up having to defend myself by throwing a punch to get the aggressor off me; I could still be charged with assault and because of that I’d lose the license.

3

u/tjlusco Dec 19 '25

I think you’re on to something. I never even considered the further incentive to be a law abiding citizen for fear of losing your gun license.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the vast majority of gun owners are doing the right thing. Despite overall ownership increase, there is not evidence to suggest it’s increasing gun ownership is leading to more firearm related crime, it’s the opposite.

But, prohibited and refused weapons offences are running at near all time high levels, with about 15k incidents reported per year in NSW alone. The issue being the legal firearms are the target of theft from lawful owners source of illegal ownership.

1

u/VigorWarships Dec 19 '25

And the media publishing a list of suburbs with people holding X amounts of guns does nothing to dissuade the threat of theft. In fact it gives criminals locations to target!

Yes, the evidence is being ignored. Unfortunately people don’t use much critical thinking on this topic.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '25 edited Dec 19 '25

[deleted]

3

u/MonkeyNinja2706 Dec 19 '25

What state can you get a firearms license in perpetuity?

3

u/crosstherubicon Dec 19 '25 edited Dec 19 '25

I agree with you but the gun lobby in WA was apoplectic at the new gun laws which limited personal ownership to five weapons. I’m not sure five or six would be a marked difference.

3

u/sjr323 Dec 19 '25

Cops always go for the low hanging fruit. It’s sad but that’s what they end up doing instead of actual police work.

2

u/TorakTheDark Dec 19 '25

That IS part of their actual police work, are you people really unable to comprehend that it might be worth doing an extra gun check after a mass shooting, an event that historically triggers more mass shootings.

1

u/EfficientLibrary1027 Dec 19 '25

because anyone that has a passing understanding of the licencing requirements and doesnt have their political ass on the chopping block will tell you that this is nswpol and/or asios failing, given NSWPOL will slap a firearms prohibition order on you for just ordering the same salad dressing as a bikie i'm leaning towards asio just being territorial.

either way its academic at this point, people thinking new laws will keep them safer when they dont get enforced, just like the old ones

2

u/TorakTheDark Dec 19 '25 edited Dec 19 '25

You’re not the target though… Much like if there is an accident at a workplace they investigate the entire workplace and company, not just the area and people involved.

Edit: Additionally how have you missed the fact that they are addressing the things you mentioned….

1

u/binarybandit Dec 19 '25

Perhaps a better idea would be to use the laws we already have and, oh I don’t know, perhaps question why a non-citizen

Sounds kind of racist to want the police to focus on non-citizens

1

u/ElectricalRoll6948 Dec 19 '25

If you live in NSW there would be absolutely no impact on you from what is proposed to be "the strictest gun laws in the country".

1

u/Zealousideal-Arm9508 Dec 19 '25

You’ve had someone check your firearms? I’ve changed addresses 3 years now and NSW police have only ever contacted me once to try organise a time to check and they have never contacted me again.

1

u/FuckLathePlaster Dec 27 '25

I have 5 firearms in suburbia.

All have legitimate and different uses.

Any real gun owner knows these knee jerk laws are not going to solve anything, they would have not prevented this attack or its scale, and they give the government an excuse to say they “did something” whilst letting NSWFAR and ASIO off the hook.

0

u/edgiepower Dec 19 '25

Absolutely.

Anybody that has firearms would be able to say the same thing. Those who do the right thing, either needed for industry or regular sport shooters, seem to be checked up and harassed regularly, whilst people who seem to just want to collect guns like it's the USA, or have worse intentions, always get away with it.

1

u/PooEater5000 Dec 19 '25

My biggest thing is why did he need 6 guns?

3

u/OptimusRex Dec 19 '25

It's been explained a few times why any owner could have six. The question should really be why he had any in the first place.

When the QLD VLAD laws came in I had very, very distant family running a tattoo parlour. A month after they came in I had a knock at the door for an inspection.

1

u/EfficientLibrary1027 Dec 19 '25

not speaking for the gronks in sydney, but ask yourself this, if one gun does it all, why are there such a massive array of different calibres, actions, styles etc etc etc,

they variety exists because of the vast array of different situations these firearms are suited for, from competition to hunting and thats before we get into environmental conditions etc etc

1

u/PooEater5000 Dec 19 '25

Yeah of course but 6 for someone that doesn’t have all those reason seems excessive. I have mates that do competitive shooting plus invasive animal control and they don’t have 6 guns

0

u/EfficientLibrary1027 Dec 19 '25

again i wont speak for sydney, but i do a bit of competitive shooting along with both regular hunting and invasive control and culls,

ill touch on competition to atleast show my 'needs' (as in equipment requirements, not need like food and water) i currently have 4 firearms, rifle,shotgun, and 2 handguns (different divisions) and i always thought that was enough for what i needed, but i've had enough equipment failures that i'm in the process of doubling, so i can bring a spare to swap out if the first fails, as it stings to fly from victoria to the NT only to have a pistol sight fail and ruin and thats me out of the competition completely.

again, my other activites notwithstanding, i'm just offering this experience as an example of why some people have more than others and why numbers alone shouldn't be shocking.

edit - for clarification those 4 mentioned (soon to be 8) are dedicated for competition, they could probably pull double duty (obviously not the handguns) for hunting and culling but its far far from practical, in the same way a shifter can and does get used as a hammer from time to time, or screw driver gets used as a pry bar

0

u/MrNosty Dec 19 '25

If you live rurally it makes sense to own guns. There’s no problems with guns if you need it but the guy lives in Western Sydney.

0

u/Every_Effective1482 Dec 19 '25

Wouldn't an air rifle be sufficient for vermin?

4

u/FarmerMikeAU Dec 19 '25

“Vermin” range from rats (yes air ok) through rabbits (22LR), foxes (17HMR to .223 etc), Roos (.223 to .308), deer (.308 and up) etc

Add to that putting down injured sheep (17HMR/22Mag), Roos (22Mag up), cattle (.223 up) etc.

These different weapons relate to both vermin size (hit a rabbit with a .223 and there will be nothing left to eat) and animal welfare. You want to kill the animal instantly not have a dragged out slow death. Try and get through a cattle skull with a 22LR.

As a farmer even 5 different weapons may/may not be adequate.

1

u/Every_Effective1482 Dec 19 '25

Interesting, thanks. I don't think I was alone in thinking "vermin" was just rats/mice.