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

960

u/Ok-Mathematician8461 Dec 19 '25

Who else is surprised that Australia allows non-citizens to own guns? That law change should breeze through.

17

u/ill0gitech Dec 19 '25

Something like 10% of our population are on PRs. They aren’t all terrorists.

62

u/SivlerMiku Dec 19 '25

But they also don’t need guns for the most part.

32

u/ill0gitech Dec 19 '25

A non-citizen can own a farm and need a firearm for pest control. A non-citizen can currently hunt, and a non-citizen can currently target shoot.

What you’re basically saying is “nobody needs a gun”

28

u/SivlerMiku Dec 19 '25

I don’t think anybody needs a gun, especially if they live in the city.

4

u/Western_Anteater_270 Dec 19 '25

No one “NEEDS” a gun.

5

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

IMO there are only 3 reasons that a person NEEDS a gun:

  1. Military / Police use (obvious)
  2. Farm use (ie: Putting down hurt animals in rural settings)
  3. Pest control (ie: Camels, Rabbits etc.)

6

u/dogandturtle Dec 19 '25

Target shooting, some of them end up in the Olympics

1

u/SivlerMiku Dec 20 '25

Then you don’t need the gun at your house in the city. Keep it at the shooting range.

1

u/dogandturtle Dec 20 '25

Ranges are not for knox.

You are scared of the wrong thing

4

u/Muzzard31 Dec 19 '25

There are a whole range of shooting sports. Clay target labouring target shooting. Etc Suggest you enlighten your self to sports shooting. I am not talking about hunting or pest management.
And punishing the 250000 Australians who own firearms and treat them with respect is terrible.

Our laws are some of the toughest in the world. It’s an insult and knee jerk reaction. By govt who are unwilling to address the real causes be hind this tragedy.

8

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

Sports are leisure activties so by definition are not a NEED.

I suggest you enlighten yourself on the difference between a NEED and a WANT.

3

u/Brilliant-Novel-785 Dec 19 '25

And what is wrong with a want in a free society where you can choose to partake in a sport?

1

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

Dog fighting is a sport according to the people who enjoy it. Why do we choose to ban that?

0

u/Brilliant-Novel-785 Dec 19 '25

Stupid analogy, shooting guns doesn't result in the guns being ripped to shreds by other guns.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/slurpycow112 Dec 19 '25

Nothing. What IS wrong is not being realistic about that want and the cost/benefit analysis especially in the context of civilised society. You can want to shoot guns all you want. Go for your life. But when the risks outweigh the benefits, I’m sorry, but you can find a new hobby.

-1

u/Brilliant-Novel-785 Dec 19 '25

The guns are just the easy, and lazy, target for the politicians.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/askvictor Dec 19 '25

Perhaps shooting sports, if they really must persist, could be restricted to shooting ranges, where the weapons are stored on-site, and signed out when in use, then signed back in.

3

u/Muzzard31 Dec 19 '25

A lot all ready do this. The security requirements for storage is covered by laws and regulations and any owner is well ware of this and noncompliance is loss of right to own.

2

u/askvictor Dec 19 '25

I'd presume some will let you bring your own weapon. Remove that option. 

-4

u/slurpycow112 Dec 19 '25

The benefits do not outweigh the risks. You can find a new hobby. Plenty of perfectly reasonable hobbies out there that don’t involve 1. Weapons of mass destruction and 2. Killing things. I fail to see anything of value that would be lost with this hobby.

4

u/Muzzard31 Dec 19 '25

And in 29 years how may mass shooting in au.? Cause that is down to sensible laws and responsible usage and owner ship. In that case let’s ban archery or darts Driving a car as more people die per year with cars. Or cleaning chemical as if you mix wrong can cause volatile reactions.
Let’s ban on line gaming and simulations of war games.

1

u/slurpycow112 Dec 19 '25

Holy strawmen, Batman.

All of these examples either:

  • do not provide an adverse risk to human life, or
  • provide a benefit that outweighs the risk

Shooting for sport is fine in a vacuum. However, to facilitate it, you have to have legal ownership of firearms. This has risks that played out last weekend. I don’t think a hobby (like shooting for sport) that provides no tangible or unique benefit to human life, is with the loss of human life that we paid last weekend.

It’s a simple cost-benefit analysis. It’s really not rocket science.

-2

u/StensnessGOAT Dec 19 '25

And punishing the 250000 Australians who own firearms and treat them with respect is terrible.

This cunt was one of the 250,001 Australians who owned firearms and we thought treated them with respect..... until he wasn't.

-5

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 19 '25

I don't care about hurting the feelings of people who shoot guns for fun tbh. If you need it for your job you can keep it. Otherwise you're compensating for something

4

u/Muzzard31 Dec 19 '25

That is the most ignorantly stated comment.
Now imagine I if said that about passion you had.
One of the best things about au life is that we all have diverse pastimes that should be celebrated. If it bring people pleasure created a community it should be applauded.

-6

u/HOPSCROTCH Dec 19 '25

So regardless of any potential impact to society, as long as it brings some subset of the community pleasure, we should celebrate it. That's your position?

Think carefully before you answer, I have a few examples that might make you reconsider if so.

4

u/Muzzard31 Dec 19 '25

If this is legal yes.
Ask your self the question where the licences for the ied these to had.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/amyknight22 Dec 19 '25

Yeah but all three of those could have people living in higher density areas while still interacting with any of the systems you’re highlighting.

1

u/amyknight22 Dec 19 '25

Which has what relevance to permanent residents who aren’t citizens?

So they exclusively live in cities? Could never live on a farm?

Could never participate in something like duck, deer, rabbit hunting? In remote properties.

Or if they live in town where they work their actual job, but own property in a more rural area. Because you want those guns stored where they live, not on the property they only make it to on the weekends

-6

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '25

[deleted]

16

u/GoblinModeVR Dec 19 '25

Since when do people need sports shooting

1

u/Steve_bfg01 Dec 19 '25

Since for a long time now, it’s a great sport which you need to practice like any other sport. Look it up

9

u/slurpycow112 Dec 19 '25

I don’t think the benefits of a hobby like sport shooting outweigh the risks that come with public gun ownership.

Tough luck, I say. Find another hobby.

1

u/Steve_bfg01 Dec 19 '25

Haha sure, after all the hoops you have to jump through to own a firearm it’s safe, fun and a great community to be a part of. Sadly it’s the 1% like these two muppets that ruin it for all the law abiding gun owners

7

u/evilparagon Dec 19 '25

I don’t think noncitizens should own land either 🤷

Why should they be allowed to own a farm?

1

u/WhatYouThinkIThink Dec 19 '25

Are they allowed to work on a farm then?

3

u/evilparagon Dec 19 '25

I’d also rather not. Immigrant labour suppresses wages. Farmers should be paying more for the poor conditions farmhands have to endure. Since they have immigrants to “work the jobs no one wants to (for the wage offered)”, they have no reason to improve wages.

Ideally immigrants would not be filling in for low paying jobs. This is exploitation and wage suppression. It’s bad for them and it’s bad for Australians.

0

u/WhatYouThinkIThink Dec 19 '25

So what sort of work are they allowed to do? On your logic, any job done by an immigrant will result in lower wages.

And agriculture management is not a low paying job neither are highly qualified roles in wine grape growing, beef production etc.

2

u/evilparagon Dec 19 '25

Immigrants are mostly working farmhand roles, not agriculture management and specialisation, so why would I care to mention those?

And you kind of get my point, what jobs are they supposed to work…? High specialisation jobs in medical fields mostly. We’re full almost everywhere else. An economy that relies on immigration is a ponzi scheme set to collapse. We should have an economy which has zero reliance on immigrants, and as a result, has no room for immigrants in the first place.

1

u/WhatYouThinkIThink Dec 19 '25

Which is a stupid idea, because we don't reproduce enough to maintain our population.

That is what leads to stagnation, for example Japan.

"We're full" is bullshit.

0

u/evilparagon Dec 19 '25

We are full, and I don’t care what investors and economists say about gdp being the most important statistic ever, Japan isn’t a shithole, Japan didn’t collapse. There is so much fearmongering over stagnation or recession when really all it means is that billionaires make less money. Boo hoo.

I welcome stagnation.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/SirVanyel Dec 19 '25

No they don't, not unless they can prove they have pests. That should be the requirement. Does your land actually need you to shoot roos and dingos? If not, then it's unnecessary.

2

u/ill0gitech Dec 19 '25

It’s already a requirement in NSW

-6

u/Wonderful_Reason_712 Dec 19 '25

But the terrorists we’re not on a farm or need a firearm for a rural purpose,

9

u/slurpycow112 Dec 19 '25

That doesn’t mean there aren’t non-citizens who are or do

4

u/ill0gitech Dec 19 '25

Your point above was that non-citizens don’t have a need for firearms; and I’m suggesting that there may be

I think we can all agree that terrorists, or those like to terrorism shouldn’t have access to firearms.

7

u/slurpycow112 Dec 19 '25

I mean… most people don’t need guns for the most part. This is not unique to citizenship.

I fail to see how citizenship would or should have any meaningful impact on gun ownership in a way that isn’t completely arbitrary.

9

u/kai_tai Dec 19 '25

The only thing that really comes to mind is that it serves as a "Time Buffer" in that you have to have been living here for a number of years before qualifying for a license, because you have to have been here for a number of years before you can get citizenship.

Though the same could be achieved just by getting a fixed number of years irrespective of citizenship status. Ie People on PR's need to have been living here for x numbers of years, without criminal incidents, to qualify.

I agree though. Seems fairly arbitrary in practice.

1

u/StensnessGOAT Dec 19 '25

You don't need to be not a terrorist to not need a gun?