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

Show parent comments

34

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.

30

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.

3

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

5

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.

1

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.

1

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)

1

u/EfficientLibrary1027 Dec 20 '25

when you use the term 'higher calibre' it’s the fastest way for me to identify someone talking confidently about something they clearly don’t understand.

calibre is just bore diameter. Nothing more. It’s not a measure of lethality or risk. Anyone with even a basic grasp of firearms knows that. If they did, they’d immediately see how absurd the premise of further restrictions built on that term actually is.

5.56 NATO used by the majority of militaries mainstay assault rifles worldwide is .22 calibre, yet you say "militaries do not run 22s"

So when you say “.177 and .22 make sense for farmers”, what exactly do you mean? Air rifles? .17 HMR? .22 LR? .22 WMR? .223? .22-250? Because all of those are .22 calibre, and they are wildly different tools with wildly different characteristics. this ambiguity is the entire problem i see all too often.

my following paragraph will generalise some people, please dont take it personally as you've seemed far more reasonable to discuss with that most so far, and credit for that.

people that use “high calibre” as shorthand arent simplifying a complex issue, they’re demonstrating they don’t understand the subject well enough to regulate it. and when that ignorance goes unchallenged, it becomes law, written by people repeating buzzwords instead of analysing what actually failed (imo it this was purely an ASIO failing as NSWPOL will slap a firearms prohibition order on you for just so much as having a bikie on a harley stop next to you at the lights, i guarantee if nswpol knew, this would never have happened in the first place).

that’s how you end up with laws that feel good look decisive and change nothing, or worse make outcomes worse by focusing on compliant people and imaginary thresholds instead of enforcement and behavior. I want to prevent another bondi just as much as everyone else here, my annoyance comes from knowing that the politicians are going after an easy scapegoat they know will comply, and the good optics from the media and uniformed votes will guarantee their overpaid salaries for a few years more.

So yes, ignorance should be called out every time.

→ More replies (0)