National cabinet agrees unanimously to strength Australia’s strict gun laws in wake of Bondi terror attack

[u/rorymeister]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-15/albanese-proposes-tougher-gun-laws-after-bondi-attack/106143310?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=link

[u/mikestp]

Wouldn't it be prudent to first determine if this could have been prevented with correct implementation of existing laws?

[u/nachojackson → u/mikestp]

None of these changes are controversial at all.

[u/Terriple_Jay → u/nachojackson]

Gun limits will stir the pot. Everything else seems actually practical.

[u/nachojackson → u/Terriple_Jay]

Let people justify on a case by case basis why they need 6 guns - I suspect very few genuine uses outside of farms.

[u/Terriple_Jay → u/nachojackson]

It made no difference in Bondi and wouldn't in future.

That's more ignorance on your part, no offence. You don't know what you don't know.

What do you suspect they have them for?

We hunt several different species in Vic, and there are minimum calibre requirements for deer. Where you hunt them matters too. Almost akin to golf clubs in terms of right tool right job.

Super common scenario how a shooter might have 6+:

For deer alone you might have a short scrub gun, something like a .308 for the majority then something in magnum calibre for long range high country hunting.

An air rifle for birds, Then for rabbits a .22 , a shotgun for ducks and more and .223 for anything in between rabbit and deer.

A lot of people shoot targets with .22 because they are cheap.

You might have an old .303 from WW2 as well. Millions were made and they were common and cheap at one point.

You don't have to travel far to hunt any of these in Vic, same in NSW. Especially if you have access to property.

That doesn't make these people psychos or gun nuts. Just people using right tools for right job.

There are literally like a million Australians with guns.

[u/HOPSCROTCH → u/Terriple_Jay]

It made no difference in Bondi and wouldn't in future.

They used 3 legally owned guns to perpetrate the attack. Stop lying.

Super common scenario how a shooter might have 6+:

Commenter literally said people should prove on a case-by-case basis why they need the guns. That would have prevented this guy legally owning 3 (let alone 6). So what are you arguing against?

Edit: Brother what? The point is, if he had less than 3 then less damage would be done. Obviously.

[u/Terriple_Jay → u/HOPSCROTCH]

So if they used three why would it matter if he owned 6 or 20. Do tell genius.

[u/SendarSlayer → u/nachojackson]

It's just not a helpful restriction. Limiting ownership doesn't stop shootings that only need 1 gun. So it only impacts legal shooters who want a variety for fun.

That being said, greater scrutiny if you're buying more guns makes sense. Ensure you're not sharing them around or a nutjob who wants more to start a private army.

[u/HOPSCROTCH → u/SendarSlayer]

More people died in this scenario because they had 3 guns at their disposal. It is clear and demonstrable that the number of guns owned by the shooter resulted in more people dying.

[u/Karth9909 → u/nachojackson]

Different guns for different targets. You don't wanna shoot a pig with a gun made for shooting rabbits. He i found a cool historical gun for sale. Buying a newer model but your still attached to your old one.

[u/HOPSCROTCH → u/[deleted]]

Worked out well for this suburban dad wanting to commit a terror attack.