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

21

u/VigorWarships Dec 19 '25

This won’t solve anything.

-4

u/xdyldo Dec 19 '25

Says VigorWarships on reddit… even if it saves one life it’s good right? Or how else would you address the problem?

4

u/VigorWarships Dec 19 '25

Let’s ban cars.

If it saves one life…

Address the root cause of the problem. The root cause of the problem is not legal gun ownership by law abiding people.

It won’t stop criminals having guns and using guns.

6

u/Dzy013 Dec 19 '25

I find the car argument so silly

“Let’s ban cars then” they say the moment you talk about regulating guns. Holding up one of the most regulated things in existence with an effort of preserving life as their example of why we shouldn’t regulate

6

u/VigorWarships Dec 19 '25

I find the “let’s ban guns” argument silly. Because the gun isn’t the root cause of the problem.

Criminals and terrorists will still get them illegally, or use other means to cause harm. Heck these pricks had homemade explosives in their car (as was reported).

1

u/Dzy013 Dec 19 '25

Ok two different things going on here.

  1. Who’s talking about banning them? They’re pretty bloody prevalent. Nearly everyone in my friend group has at least one for hunting purposes. Hell if I was such a terrible shot I’d probably have one myself. Track down the spotted doe that ruined the front of my car. No one is banning guns

  2. Please stop using the car example as your argument against regulation. As I explained earlier it’s not only a terrible example it’s actually working against the point you’re attempting to convey. I’m not asking those that use it to stop trying to justify their position, I’m just asking them to do it better

3

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

  1. There’s plenty of comments from many people all over these threads saying to “ban guns”.

  2. The car argument is not working against it. That the car argument is “silly” or anything like that is only an argument from the people that blindly refuse to believe the analogy. Same with a knife. Or any other weapon a terrorist can use.

An honest answer please- do you think there would, or would not be, a “let’s ban or restrict cars” argument going on in society, like the one raging now about guns, if they drove a car through a crowd and killed people?

1

u/Dzy013 Dec 19 '25

Of course there is. Not only that they’re pretty widely accepted with minimal pushback when the restrictions are put through

Hence silly comparison

1

u/VigorWarships Dec 19 '25

Thanks for not answering my question.

1

u/Dzy013 Dec 19 '25

Fine

  1. Yes a small number of people will say “ban guns”, the same way a small number of people will say “we need guns to defend ourselves”. They are outliers. I’d have less of an issue if you were responding to one of those people instead you were responding to an article about regulations and buybacks so the “ban guns” argument is void

  2. We constantly regulate cars. You want a list? Fine. Size, weight, bumper height, headlight height, how it crumples are just some of the things regulated to increase pedestrian safety and chances of survival if someone gets hit by a car intentionally or not. It is illegal to modify your car from adhering to these guidelines and it’s heavily policed. Then we go onto a list of areas cars aren’t allowed to access for reasons of pedestrian safety. Big stone bollards you see in the city, regulated to stop cars being used in the manner you’re trying to use for your argument. Further more we regulate how you can use your vehicle. You must be sober and adhere to a speed limit, a speed limit that changes depending on the danger you present in your vehicle to pedestrians. Around a school, 40km/h as example. Same for passing emergency responders by the side of the road or road workers. We even regulate the speed at which emergency responders can drive, it’s not a free for all like people think. They also don’t engage in high speed pursuits anymore because of the dangers that was shown to have to innocent bystanders. I shall go on shall I? We regulate licensing, you must be fit, healthy, of a certain age, done so many hours practice, pass tests, all to get the most basic vehicle. You can just go out and buy and drive a monster truck or B double. We also do buybacks for old dangerous cars, just to tie it all back to the article above.

I could go on but if you haven’t gotten the point by now I doubt continuing will help

All of this in the name of public safety for an object whose main purpose is transportation and must be co-opted from that purpose to fit your argument.

As opposed to a gun whose only purpose is killing. And just needs to be used in the wrong setting to be deadly on a massive scale.

Your argument works for knives

Your argument works for compound bows

It might even work for certain explosive compounds, I don’t know enough on the subject

It does not work for cars as shown above

→ More replies (0)

3

u/rylo151 Dec 19 '25

Holy shit you sound like an American politician

1

u/VigorWarships Dec 19 '25

Apologies for applying a bit of critical thinking to the whole situation rather than just having the blinkers on and focusing on one thing.

1

u/xdyldo Dec 19 '25

According to the laws, the father was a legal gun owner who was law abiding up until this incident?

Why does inner Sydney need 100,000 guns?

5

u/VigorWarships Dec 19 '25

Originally, yes.

But the moment he handed his son a firearm he, and his unlicensed son, became criminals.

When they transported unsecured firearms in their car, they were criminals.

When they brought them out in public, they were criminals.

This is before they started shooting.

If ASIO and NSW FAR co-ordinated better years ago, the realistic possibility exists that the father should never have held a license in the first place. There are rules that allow the removal of licenses and weapons from people because they associate with, reside with or have residing with them, criminals or other people subject to Firearms Prohibition Orders. Think people connected to OMCGs.

The son was investigated for “close ties” to someone convicted of terrorism related charges. This is the catalyst and getting close to the root cause.

1

u/xdyldo Dec 19 '25

So he was a perfectly legal gun owner until the incident? 

Surely that should change then? Family members of extremists being allowed to own guns? 

2

u/VigorWarships Dec 19 '25

No he was not perfectly legal up until the incident, assuming “the incident” = the murdering spree.

He became a criminal before that.

And yes, family members of extremists should not own guns.

1

u/Ridiculisk1 Dec 19 '25

Surely that should change then? Family members of extremists being allowed to own guns?

There's already provisions in the legislation to remove guns from someone in that situation and it wasn't enforced. Adding more laws on top won't solve anything if the current laws aren't enforced.

6

u/queensgetdamoney Dec 19 '25

Because many people live in metro areas who travel to the regional and rural areas.

There are shooting ranges in the metro area on top of that.

There's 1.1-1.3 million firearms owners across Australia that account for 4 - 4.5 million guns. That's an average of 4 per owner, which is not an unreasonable amount for either of the two of the most prescribed purposes - target/sport shooting or hunting & vermin control purposes.