21/12/2025
1. Criminals Don't Follow Laws, If someone is willing to commit terrorism or mass murder, they're already breaking dozens of laws. Adding more restrictions on legal ownership won't stop them—they'll source guns illegally, steal them, or modify legal ones. The Bondi shooters used legally obtained fi****ms, but the real issue was failures in background checks, intelligence sharing, and assessing risk (e.g., radicalisation links not flagged). Focusing on law-abiding owners is like punishing all drivers for a drunk driver—ineffective and unfair.
2. Punishing the Law-Abiding Doesn't Solve the ProblemA buyback or caps (like NSW's proposed 4-gun limit for most) mainly affects responsible licensed owners: farmers controlling pests, hunters, or sport shooters. These people comply with strict rules (background checks, storage requirements, genuine reasons). Criminals and terrorists won't hand in guns. Groups like the Shooters Union call this a "political stunt" that wastes taxpayer money without addressing black-market fi****ms or extremism.
3. Australia's Laws Are Already Strict—and Effective in Many WaysPost-1996 reforms reduced mass shootings with semi-automatics and lowered firearm deaths/suicides. But gun-related crime persists via illegal fi****ms (stolen or smuggled). More guns exist now than after Port Arthur (over 4 million legally owned), yet mass shootings were rare until Bondi. This suggests the system works for law-abiding people, and gaps are in enforcement/intelligence, not needing more bureaucracy for the compliant.
4. Legitimate Uses MatterFarmers need fi****ms for feral animal control (e.g., pigs, foxes damaging crops/livestock). Recreational shooters and pest controllers use them responsibly. Blanket caps or bans ignore these practical needs in rural Australia, where police response times are long. It's logical to exempt those with genuine reasons rather than one-size-fits-all restrictions.
5. Better Alternatives ExistCommon sense points to enforcing existing laws better: faster intelligence sharing, a completed national fi****ms register (still delayed), stricter checks on radicalisation, and targeting illegal gun markets. These address root causes without burdening responsible owners.This isn't about opposing all change—it's about targeting fixes where they matter. Many licensed owners and groups (e.g., Shooters Union, Sporting Shooters' Association) argue this way, emphasizing evidence over knee-jerk reactions. The debate is heated, but the logic boils down to: don't fix what isn't broken for the vast majority who follow the rules.