21
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by kwero@sh.itjust.works to c/australia@aussie.zone
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] freedickpics@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

Yes all we need is a kneejerk reaction while the public is reeling from a tragedy

[-] Dimand@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago

I would like to see some reform from this.

I would very much like to see the national electronic register implanted fast and effectively along with nationally consistent laws. The current paper form system here in the ACT feels very outdated and I'm sure that the information transfer is slow and difficult.

I would also like to see them change straight pull action rifles and shotguns to class C. I think there is a good argument for Adler style lever action shotguns to be class C as well. I feel like the legislation has not kept up here and the fire rate of these guns is a bit too high.

I'm not against the citizen only limitation (noting it won't affect me) but I'm not sure if excluding permanent residents will have any significant impact.

In terms of number limits, I am also unsure if this will have any significant influence. To me, even 1 gun is enough to be very dangerous. You can't really shoot more than one at a time. It's not like explosives where the total amount directly correlates to more dangerous. I would feel bad if I inherited my great great grandfather's still functional shotgun and had to destroy a 120 year old antique because I already had 2 other guns.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago

I would also like to see them change straight pull action rifles and shotguns to class C

I heard some talk of moving away from the class-based system entirely, to a more case-by-case system.

I'm not against the citizen only limitation

Personally, as someone else unaffected (as both a citizen and someone not interested in owning a fun anyway), I am. I don't like the idea of permanent residents being treated as second-class citizens.

In terms of number limits, I am also unsure if this will have any significant influence

I have no idea if this is true, but I heard that after Ahmed al Ahmed disarmed him, one of the shooters ran off and got another gun. Gun limits would certainly prevent that scenario.

And also various other scenarios, like one person owning enough guns to help arm others who do not/cannot own their own. Or using multiple guns because it's quicker to switch than to reload.

[-] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 2 points 9 hours ago

The optics are bad of restricting gun ownership to citizens, but guns ought not be something people are entitled to like they are in America. It's common sense that to use a gun within Australia someone should be a citizen of Australia. A non-citizen can always buy a bunch of guns, sell them, then hop the border to their home country.

In short, there should be the absolute maximum restrictions on guns. Every lever possible should be pulled.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

It’s common sense that to use a gun within Australia someone should be a citizen of Australia

No it's not. It's common sense that a permanent resident should have all the same rights an Australian citizen does, apart from those specifically related to the functioning of our government (e.g. voting).

edit: and heck, I even think they should have the right to vote in Council elections.

[-] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 1 points 8 hours ago

It's not common sense that a permanent resident should have all the same rights. It's perfectly valid that if someone isn't considered worthy of being a citizen they should also not be considered worthy of owning lethal weapons.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 8 hours ago

Treating immigrants as second-class is gross and deeply unaustralian.

[-] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 1 points 8 hours ago

It's more like 1.001th class citizens. Gun ownership is not a right, it's not statistically significant in terms of the classing of citizens.

[-] Dimand@aussie.zone 3 points 14 hours ago

It is true that after he was disarmed he went and got another gun. The gun number argument feels like an ineffective bandaid though.

Is the collector with 20+ break action shotguns that are all over 60 years old and enjoys showing them off at the trap range is a worry, almost certainly not.

What about some random guy with two very similar straight pull shotguns that can easily be modified to a higher capacity mag. And who just put in an application for their 3rd and 4th very similar guns (within say a hypothetical 4 gun limit).

I would hope that the second person gets a much closer look over than the first. This is where an electronic national register and the resources to have closer individual scrutiny would be far more effective.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 8 hours ago

The gun number argument feels like an ineffective bandaid though

Think of it less as a bandaid, and more as one small tool in a long list of tools used to prevent things like this.

And whoops. I actually started my last comment to make one main point, but added in a bunch of other points along with it. And then forgot to get to the main reason I started replying. So here it is:

I would feel bad if I inherited my great great grandfather’s still functional shotgun and had to destroy a 120 year old antique

Present laws treat antiques very differently from more modern guns with more utilitarian purpose. Future laws should continue to do this, IMO.

Along with moving away from a class-based system into a case-by-case system, perhaps rather than a specific number of guns, the law should include, as one of the factors in the case-by-case assessment, why the person needs an additional gun. If it's filling a niche that the person very clearly cannot fill with their current guns (and which the person has a demonstrated need to fill), then allow it. Multiple of the same or similar type of weapon is less likely to be a valid reason than owning a rifle for pigs, an antique collectible, and a clay pigeon shotgun.

[-] Dimand@aussie.zone 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

I like the idea of a case by case assessment. I feel like they should have already been doing this in the background and questioning people with sus armouries.

But I strongly disagree with the removal of the class system. I know it will get abused and some yahoo will successfully argue they need a semi auto rifle for some stupid reason and get it without having to go through the current class C license requirements.

Our class system is very effective and shouldn't be watered down because of this.

Edit: basically, in the list of tools, keep the classes, they are very good but might need some updating to put more in class C.

[-] Zozano@aussie.zone 2 points 1 day ago

I think everyone should own a fun

[-] Dimand@aussie.zone 1 points 14 hours ago

Only with safety training and a valid reason for fun activities!

[-] fizzle@quokk.au 10 points 1 day ago

One failure in the 1996 National Firearms Agreement was that it allowed membership of a target shooting gun club to be a valid reason for obtaining a gun licence. This was a serious mistake. Gun clubs were immediately flooded with applications for new members, and the membership fees have helped to support shooters’ parties in state parliaments and to fund gun lobby groups who have a vested interest in weakening gun laws and promoting the sales of more guns and ammunition.

I dont really think this is a fair assessment.

Yes its a concession that allowed some people to have some weapons, but in exchange they had to be connected to a club.

Its easy to forget that at the time, while these laws had a lot of support, there was still a very strong opposition. A significant portion of the population felt the way Americans would - that their rights were being taken away and that it was authoritarian over reach.

Maybe things have changed now, and maybe its time to dial up regulation of gun clubs, but in 1996 the govt of the time did what they could with that legislation.

[-] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Yeah, you're right.

But I think today what needs to change is that only gun clubs themselves should be able to own guns, not members of gun clubs.

[-] stylusmobilus@aussie.zone 10 points 1 day ago

Given they were a conservative one to boot, they certainly did. It caused splits within their party, but Howard held firm. For mine, outside the GST it was probably the only good policy his government introduced.

The laws put in after Port Arthur have served us very well. The flaws are identified, they’re within screening for citizenship and issuing licences to non citizens. Change or strengthen those and this doesn’t occur. The weapons they used are legal and reasonable under our laws.

That said, as someone who used to own firearms and spent several years in the bush, very few people have a need for more than a few firearms and it should not be difficult at all for us to create caveats within laws for the small few that do. That includes competitive sports shooters who may need a few. If someone possesses over 100 of them though, you’d think they’d be running a gun museum. Most farmers and professional shooters I’ve met generally rely on two or three weapons. They are necessary, but most purposes on farms or grazing properties are suited by a small and large bore rifle (often a compromise between the two, such as a .223) and a single barrel shotgun. Roo shooters like high quality, flat shooting bolt action rifles with floating barrels. Rarely are semi autos needed, unless it’s feral animal hunting from choppers or rabbit shooting and the caveats for this already exist.

If anyone claims they need more than three, they’re probably not being genuine. For most people in an urban setting it’s hard to justify ownership of one let alone more.

Point is yeah, the governments probably want to be a bit careful here. A lot was already given up and the less window Hanson and her shitcunts are given the better. This failed at the point of visa and licensing and had we had semi autos, which we don’t, in the mix it’d have been a lot worse.

[-] Dimand@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago

There is some truth to this though the author is leaning pretty heavily one way.

To be a member of a sporting club I need to be a paid SSAA (Sports Shooting Association Australia) member. And the SSAA lobbies for changes in gun restrictions that I fundamentally disagree with.

This is one of the main reasons I quit my membership and went rec hunting only when I renewed my license.

[-] Mountaineer@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I dont really think this is a fair assessment.

Rowland Browne is a well established anti-gun nut, who other pro gun control individuals feel uncomfortable associating with.

This organisation that he's Co-Chairman of?
https://www.guncontrolaustralia.org/ ?
You could fit their active members in a Kia Carnival.

What they do have is a website and a fax machine, and they REGULARLY spam all the media outlets with "press releases", which those media outlets publish on a slow day.

According to Mr Browne, anyone who wants a gun for any reason is guilty of wrong-think.
"How dare thousands of wrong-thinkers band together to stop rightness!"

We're past the point of diminishing returns on gun control in Australia, but Mr Browne won't be happy until there isn't a single gun, nor the means to make them, and children aren't playing "cops and robbers" with bent sticks.

I'm a bit surprised we haven't heard from Phillip Alpers yet.

Edit to Add: The irrationality of the individual who downvoted me for calling out Mr Browne warms my heart.
You almost get it: you're one person, you get one vote.
But mate, so am I.
Pro-gun people aren't all paid shills, out here to promote the sale of guns and ammo like a shady drug dealer on a corner.
There are 940,000+ people who currently own them safely in this country and would like to continue doing so.

What happened in Bondi wasn't a gun control issue, it was terrorism committed with guns.
And the general public can see it.

[-] ryannathans@aussie.zone 5 points 1 day ago

Can't tell if the government is entirely missing the big picture or they are acting like this on purpose

this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
21 points (95.7% liked)

Australia

4678 readers
150 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS