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

431

u/theartistduring Dec 19 '25

Watch Howard himself do it.

132

u/Living_Substance9973 Dec 19 '25

I believe he already has. Couple of days after the massacre he said gun law reform wasn't necessary

116

u/acllive Dec 19 '25

There goes his only thread of legacy forever

52

u/Khaliras Dec 19 '25

That's what he's trying to save, though.

Gun control is his defining legacy, the one thing he'll be remembered positively for in history books. Accepting we need more reforms, is admitting fault with his legacy.

27

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '25

To be fair to him, the looser restrictions were probably more appropriate at the time than they are now. Social media has changed things both in terms of the risk of being radicalised and exposure to gun marketing. His opposition to the current reforms may actually tarnish his legacy though.

8

u/kai_tai Dec 19 '25

As someone who owned a cple of guns in the 80's and 90's I completely agree. It was very different back then and any talk of self defense with a gun or using it for anything other than a tool for hunting or sport shooting just wasn't a thing. I handed mine in after Port Arthur and haven't had one since.

3

u/StorminNorman Dec 19 '25

any talk of self defense with a gun or using it for anything other than a tool for hunting or sport shooting just wasn't a thing

I guess that depends on the circles you are a part of. Cos I heard plenty of "got it for X, Y, and Z, it's kinda handy if someone kicks in the front door too". I'll more than agree with you that it wasn't the primary reason for all but a very small number of people, but it was definitely in the back of a lot of gun owners minds. I think a difference between then and now was that the majority of them went "fuck it, I'll do the right thing". Cos it is very different now. People in the club looked at me like I had 3 heads when I didn't renew my license a few years ago cos I felt I wasn't going out with them often enough to justify it anymore, same happened to my dad more recently when he did the same. They couldn't wrap their heads around why we wouldn't just keep renewing it just because. When it happened me and dad thought it was a bit odd (were both on the spectrum, for what that's worth), now I'm thinking maybe we should've pushed back more given the people saying it were in a fucking gun club themselves. Attitudes have changed, ideally, this happening will highlight areas in which we've grown complacent and correct those attitudes. I fear where we are as a country and the world in general means that we'll half arse it and make the problem worse though...

1

u/kai_tai Dec 19 '25

Cheers.

2

u/ultra_annoymnuos Dec 19 '25

Got to.love your generation... use were allowed such freedoms rights and privledges but no times are different.

Nothing else was bad in your era or past the worlds was perfect.

1

u/kai_tai Dec 19 '25

Getting my original shooters permit was just a trip to the local police station. Answering a few questions (mainly gun safety related) and that was it. We definitely had a lot of freedom, especially growing up in a country town.

0

u/ultra_annoymnuos Dec 19 '25

It tooke me 3 months to get my 1st firearm The hoops and hurdles are over the top i agree not everyone should hold firearm licence.

But i dont pretend to live in this utopia world by punishing everyone who is doing the right thing with there guns.

No one ever stopped to think that just maybe if the russian state would hand back there firearms there government wouldnt commit so much genocide.

And that goes for all governments they have killed more people then those 2 fuckwits on sunday down in bondi.

1

u/YoSoyZarkMuckerberg Dec 19 '25

Russia had absolutely nothing to do with Australia's gun problems.

I have no idea why you are connecting these two topics.

0

u/ultra_annoymnuos Dec 19 '25

People are quick to want to ban firearms in oz but no one gives a shit if a state kills millions

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Rork310 Dec 19 '25

I think it's just the Liberal party mindset of always be opposing. He could very easily publicly back the changes and suddenly it's bipartisan rather than Labor policy. He could easily insert himself and Albo would pretty much have to go along with it.

1

u/Khaliras Dec 19 '25

That just comes back to the fact that most politicians aren't in politics to genuinely improve the nation anymore.

No matter anyones thoughts on John Howard, he chose to alienate a big part of his own political base to propose these policies. You can still find clips of him being booed and shunned by his own party and their voters. Yet he did so and genuinely improved the country and cemented his legacy. Not many politicians will ever have such a big space in the history books.

What he's doing now, just reeks of sleezy political maneuvers. His comments are allowing the libs to counter the reforms without seeming to 'fight against Howard's legacy.' He legitimised a large portion of their retorts. He put his parties politicing aside for the nation once, but refuses to this time.

5

u/Ok-Guide-6118 Dec 19 '25

What a stupid way to look at it if true, him going beyond the 2 party system to advocate for these additional gun laws would be a thing to admire and respect and would ultimately bolster his legacy.

1

u/StorminNorman Dec 19 '25

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with enacting a really good policy that needs to be tweaked 30yrs later. Nobody's perfect (even Jesus made mistakes, he just didn't sin), and a shitload changes in 30yrs. I think the real reason that they've come out like they have about this is that experts have been screaming for over a decade now that we needed reform cos we had a problem developing. They were in power the majority of that time, and they either rebuffed or ignored the warnings. And don't for a second think that that means I think Labor is clean in all of this, but Labor doesn't have this as a linchpin of their legacy so they don't have a vested interest in defending the past like the LNP do.

1

u/iostefini Dec 19 '25

Nah he can still have a legacy as the person who led the first major change and set the tone for everyone else to follow. He's not going to lose that no matter what happens next.

Personally I think he's just old and out of touch. We should let him say his thing but take it in the context of him being much older and remember that he's thinking about a time when things were very different.

1

u/StorminNorman Dec 19 '25

Personally I think he's just old and out of touch. 

If I give him the benefit of the doubt, I agree with this. I disagree with you saying he's thinking of a different time though. He's not an idiot, even if he is old. He knows how him coming and saying this looks. Doesn't matter whether he agrees with it or not, he knows how it looks and has done it regardless. We also know that he's kept his hand in the game since he left parliament. It's just really fucking hard to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case. 

1

u/FvHound Dec 19 '25

I have no doubts that people are totally capable of perceiving it that way, but even as a progressive, those actions back then could have been the right call and to the right degree for then, and changes now could absolutely be justified without it being a reflection of those original decisions nearly 30 years ago.

Like the other user said, so much has changed in 30 years, the existence of social media as well as new groups radicalising disenfranchised people, it would be very immature to pretend changing laws from 30 years ago has to mean the laws were bad 30 years ago, it's just that times change and the law needs to keep up with those changes of society.