As an Australian, I have been quite saddened by the many attacks on us as a nation in mourning for our dead, by many Americans who we used to think were our friends - particularly as we're quite proud of how successful our gun laws have been over the decades. We are also proud of how both our major parties have worked together on these accomplishments with our Conservative-led Government at the time of our first big massacre being the ones who responded with our first significant federal gun control legislation.
So this article is my effort at setting the record straight and demonstrating that there have been very significant correlations between reductions in mass shootings, homicides and suicides and the introduction of gun control legislation in Australia. And what came as a surprise for me was the fact that similar gun control correlations can be seen in the USA and New Zealand as well.
So it is quite right for us to question whether this is all purely coincidental and driven by other factors or is it evidence that Gun Control legislation worked?
If we look at the graph above comparing mass shooting victims in the US versus Australia since 1980, we see that while horrific, the Bondi event actually demonstrates how rare mass shooting fatalities have been in Australia since the 5 instances of state and federal gun control legislation were introduced from 1988 onwards. As can be seen in the chart, after the Port Arthur Massacre and the subsequent 1997 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) shown in purple above, there were only 3 small mass shootings in the almost 3 decades up to the Bondi massacre. In comparison, there were 13 mass shootings in the 14 years prior to the Port Arthur massacre.
In comparison, after the three US gun control acts from 1990 - 1994 (shown in green above), mass shooting deaths similarly started to trend downwards until the US Supreme Court ruled mandatory Police checks were unconstitutional in 1997 (shown in red above).
Mass shootings then started to trend upwards until the 2001 World Trade Center terrorist attack significantly reduced mass shootings for the next 3 years possibly due to the hefty security measures in place post-911.
That didn't last for long as the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban then expired in 2004 at which point annual mass shooting maxima started surging again, doubling and then tripling over the next two decades till the present. Even considering that the US population is 12x the size of Australia, those US mass shooting numbers have consistently trended upwards to up to 23x greater than Australia's maxima prior to Bondi.
So, is this causation? We may not yet have enough evidence to tell whether this strong correlation was due to other factors, but it's a heck of a coincidence that Australian mass shootings dropped by 10x after our gun control legislation while in the same timeframe US mass shootings surged by 3x - 10x after US anti-gun control measures were introduced.
Of course the Bondi massacre has now broken that run putting Australia at 2 mass shootings over the last decade with a maxima over double the highest maxima over the last 3 decades. But that is still 5x lower than the pre-NFA figure and 50x less than the 100 mass shootings per decade of the USA despite having 12x less population.
So, that was mass shootings - how about all firearm-related deaths? Well, as you can see below, we have yet more strong correlation with both firearm homicides and suicides suddenly plunging after each of the 4 firearm legislative acts. That is 5 inflection points where both suicides and homicides sharply trended downwards with the other 3 intersections maintaining the downward trend:
So, we have 5 more data points where both significant inflections downwards in homicides and suicides were strongly correlated with gun-control legislation. Yes there have been a handful of minor inflection points briefly trending upwards after most pieces of legislation, but as you can see in the chart, they are all very small in comparison and well within the normal fluctuations expected of annual statistics with the general trend continuing downwards with a plateauing occurring over the last decade as would be expected with the law of diminishing returns.
Do we have causation yet? If you are still in denial, you'd have to admit these "coincidences" are sure mounting up.
Many commentators argue that this graph just follows what happened in other countries, so let's fact-check them - do gun-related homicides and suicides in the US follow the same continual decline as Australia?
Nope. This graph shows the last 25 years, and shows significant increases in firearm homicides and suicides compared to the significant decreases in those metrics over a similar duration in the Aussie chart further up.
So, what about Australia's overall Homicide rate? Did the criminals just switch to knives and other weapons?
Nope again. In addition, it's important to note that the 15 fatalities of the recent Bondi massacre would not move the needle much at all with these stats as it represents only 6% of the 262 homicides in Australia in 2023-2024.
As you can see above, yet again, we discover 3 out of the 4 new inflection points where the homicide rate has trended downwards each time those new Gun Control regs came into force, with the National Handgun Control Agreement in 2002 resulting in a particularly strong inflection downwards. While some of the data sources - for example the green UNODOC source between 2007 and 2010 and the red coloured IHME Global Burden of Disease dataset between 2005 and 2010 show significant increases in homicides, averaging all datasets together pretty much eliminates those outliers giving us a trend line that continues downward all the way through to 2023.
So what this means is offenders didn’t just switch to knives or some other weapon, and we have 2 more inflection points where homicides immediately trended downwards at the introduction of 2 of those gun laws. Even if you still insist in alleging coincidence, you would have to agree the argument for causation is getting stronger.
Now many commentators claim that there are external factors that have caused this overall decline in homicides to have occurred in the USA and other countries without it being caused by the introduction of gun control legislation. So, why don't we look at the USA and see if that really is the case?
Well, look at that - the US did in fact have 3 sets of gun control legislation from 1990 - 1994 and wouldn't you know it - each coincides with major inflection points with homicides trending downwards after each.
However, in 1997 and 2004 that steep decline in homicides was arrested over the course of 7 years and sent back upwards by two pieces of anti-gun control acts (with a spike in 2001 due to 911).
So we have 5 more inflection points (some very steep) showing pro and anti-firearm legislation having very distinct impacts in opposite directions on the homicide rate.
The trend line then hovered between 5-7 homicides per 100k for the next decade with a significant bump during COVID.
Yet more coincidences? With this weight of evidence building up, it is getting extremely difficult to sustain that argument.
Another common argument is that homicides in New Zealand followed a similar decrease as Australia despite not having any gun laws. The irony is, that NZ did indeed enact stricter gun controls after a massacre in 1990 as can be seen below:
And as you can see above, the homicide rate immediately plunged after the 1992 legislation - just like in Australia and just like in the USA. If you're still arguing coincidence, are you sure you are maintaining your objectivity or are you succumbing to a siege mentality at this point?
So, how about some other metrics that wouldn't be affected by "other factors" (factors such as stricter policing and policies going hard on crime in the 1990's)?
How about suicides? We've already seen that gun-related suicide saw dramatic plunges in suicide rates at each and every instance of Australian gun legislation, how about overall suicide numbers - did they just switch to other methods of performing the act? The answer is no as you can see below:
The suicide rate above saw 3 more major inflection points again in 1988, 1997 and 2002 which was sustained in 2003 all coinciding with the introduction of gun legislation on each of those dates. So yet more coincidences? Or yet more evidence of causation.
The suicide rate does start trending upwards again in 2005 to erase some of those gains which might be due to other factors, though at maximum, it is still a third less than the previous pre-gun-control maxima.
Which other factors you may well ask? Well, it is very interesting to note that even though around a third of Australia's guns were bought by the government and destroyed in the buybacks of 1997 and 2003 reducing the total number of gun-owning households by half, the number has since grown back to more guns now (3.5 million guns) than Australia had before the buybacks at the time of the Port Arthur massacre.
The distinction is these are legally owned guns with tighter controls around acquisition, police checks and safe gun storage that would explain why crime has not increased as well - yet having more legal gun owners means more people having legal access to firearms to end their lives.
So, let's look at the figures from the USA:
Wouldn't you know it - subsequent to the last two pieces of US gun control legislation, the suicide rate did indeed start decreasing though not at as steep a rate as Australia which is not surprising considering the less-than comprehensive nature of that Federal legislation with loopholes for private buyers.
The first anti-gun act which killed Police checks appears not to have affected suicides, which is perhaps not surprising as while it would help weed out many of those with a criminal history it would have had minimal affect on legal gun owners.
And again, in this case after the second gun act, the suicide rate increased to exceed the earlier maxima by 10% with another bump upwards due to COVID.
Also interesting in the last few graphs is the fact that homicides and suicides in the US both suddenly saw significant bumps during COVID, while in Australia both dropped. Looks like the insinuation that Australians suffered severe depredations during the Pandemic due to a "nanny state" are untrue after all. Aussies instead really benefitted from government policies during those times, unlike in the USA.
Conclusion
So what we have seen is evidence that mass shootings, homicides and suicides have all immediately been positively and negatively affected by pro and anti-gun control legislation respectively in Australia, the US and NZ at 15 different inflection points all matching up in almost all cases exactly with the introduction of the aforementioned gun control legislation:
- Mass Shootings
- Australian mass shootings decreased by 10x after the National Firearm Agreement (NFA) in 1997. (including the Bondi Massacre, that figure now works out as a decrease of 7.25x compared to pre-NFA).
- There were 13 mass shootings in the 14 years prior to the NFA and only 4 mass shootings in the following 29 years.
- US mass shootings initially started to decrease after the Brady Handgun Act in 1993, but then surged by 3x - 10x after US gun control roll-backs in 1997 and 2004.
- Firearm related Homicides and Suicides
- Australia:
- Shooting Homicides have dropped by about 80% in the 25 years since the 1988 State Firearm Legislation and by about 30% in the 11 years after the 2002 Handgun legislation and the 2003 Handgun Buyback,
- Firearm-related Suicides dropped by 80% in the 25 years after the 1988 State Firearm Legislation and by about 40% in the 11 years after the 2002 Handgun legislation and the 2003 Handgun Buyback,
- Suicides and homicides sharply trended downwards at 5 inflection points exactly matching the introduction of each piece of gun control legislation with the remaining 3 intersections seeing the downward trends continue at the same rate.
- US:
- Firearm-related suicides have increased by 60% in the past 25 years.
- Shooting homicides have doubled in that same timeframe
- Australia:
- Overall Homicides
- Australia:
- Homicides have dropped by about 60% since the 1997 NFA with a 40% decrease in the last 23 years since the 2002 Handgun legislation.
- The homicide rate trended sharply downwards at 3 inflection points out of the 4 intersections with each new Gun Control reg.
- The Australian homicide rate is at 1.0 per 100k (2023-2024)
- US:
- Homicides initially dropped 40% after the 3 US Gun Laws were introduced
- Homicides then flattened out after many of those Gun laws were watered down or expired oscillating between 5-7 homicides per 100k for the last 25 years.
- The US homicide rate is 6.0 per 100k (2024), 6x greater than Australia.
- New Zealand
- Homicides immediately plunged following the 1992 Firearm legislation decreasing 50% to today (with a large spike in 2019 due to the Christchurch Mosque massacre)
- The NZ homicide rate is at 1.2 per 100k (2023)
- Australia:
- Overal Suicides
- Australia
- The suicide rate saw 3 major inflection points trending downwards again coinciding exactly with the gun laws in 1988, 1997 and 2002
- The suicide rate dropped 30% over the 8 years immediately following the NFA.
- The suicide rate has increased again back up to 15-20% below pre-NFA levels in the last 25 years mirroring the rise in legal gun ownership back up to and beyond 1997 gun-ownership levels.
- US
- The suicide rate saw 2 more inflection points trending downwards again coinciding with the gun laws in 1993 and 1994.
- The suicide rate saw an inflection point trending upwards in 2004 immediately following the 10 year expiration of the 1994 weapons ban.
- The suicide rate increased by 30% in the 12 years since the roll-back of the 1994 weapons ban to 15% above pre-Brady Bill levels.
- Australia
The probability of all of these 15 inflection points matching up exactly with all of those legislative acts purely by chance in such varied scenarios and diverse regions of the world is astronomically small. The question is - is that enough to convince you or will you prefer to dismiss it as coincidence?
Very thorough analysis. Just one small thing, maybe don't feel hurt by what citizens of the United States of America think, because the evidence suggests they don't think at all. Also they are friends with no-one, they always serve themselves.
I hear you. I've lived in the US for a few years a few decades ago and count many Americans as friends so I do still find it saddening.
Are they the ones commenting? If so, fine - but the loudest voices rarely represent the majority view.
Most Americans understand that a system doesn't have to be perfect for it to be better than their gun controls.
I'm surprised that the number of deaths from mass shootings in the US in 2025 is so low. Unless I'm misreading the graph?
Any ability to comment on licenced vs unlicensed fire arms and holders and rates of crime? How many of the firearm related crimes were by licenced fire arm holders or licenced firearms?
This. Responsible gun owners held to a Standard aren't the ones committing crime.
I suspect that, but can the data show it?
There is no valid data when we don't know the true numbers of illegal and unregistered guns and owners. So the whole gun control argument in Australia is moot. Because it's either illegal owners or mistakenly registered owners or known threats that were not delt with with current police powers that are doing the crime.
But we do know the gun crimes? Therefore of those, how many were unregistered firearms or unregistered users?
There's a bunch of papers written by the AIC that report on this.
In general, there's low adherence to licensing or registration by criminal parties.
Handguns in 2006/8 report 6% of uses were done by legal owners, 8% were done with registered handguns.
Longarms were 22% for registered guns, and 22% done by valid licence holders
There's a report published in 2000 says at even lower rates of registered ownership.
It doesn't look like AIC has done a report on firearms licences for a while.
We can't really use these sources as absolute fact due to the sample sizes, as well as being rather old information.
Those AIC percentages are being used out of context. In AIC Trends & Issues 361 (Bricknell 2008), the “6% licensed / 8% registered” figures come from the DUMA detainee survey (2005–06). They refer to detainees who said they owned a handgun in the prior 12 months, then whether those detainees held a valid Category H licence and whether their handgun was registered. That is not “percent of firearm uses by legal owners”, and it is not a national split of firearm crime by licensed vs unlicensed offenders. It’s evidence of low compliance inside a detainee sample. Full stop.
Same problem with the longarm numbers you quoted. Bricknell reports that among detainees who said they owned a longarm, 22% had it registered and 22% held a valid licence. Again, detainee self-reported ownership compliance, not crime attribution.
If you want a real offence lens from the same paper, use the NHMP homicide section. Bricknell reports that of offenders known to have used a handgun in homicide, 12% were licensed and 2% used a registered handgun. Considering all firearms used in homicide, 15% of offenders were licensed and 11% of firearms were registered. Different dataset, different offence type, and it still does not magically answer the nationwide “licensed vs unlicensed across all firearm crime” question. It does show why sweeping claims need the exact dataset, numerator, and offence type.
https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi361
Yes my bad, Sorry. Misread it and interpreted the data.
The only other data I can find for whole of firearm offences are the charges by type.
https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/tbp031.pdf
Some interesting stuff in there with very few people actually having licences disqualified but nowhere actually defines the unregistered/registered or licenced/unlicenced of each category.
Respect for owning the misread. Charges by type still doesn’t answer the “licensed vs unlicensed” question because it doesn’t attribute the actual firearm used. In a lot of cases the gun can’t be conclusively traced (serial numbers removed, not recovered, or records incomplete), so you can’t prove it was stolen from a lawful owner or held legally. And one illegal firearm can be reused across multiple offences, so “number of charges” is not “number of guns” or “number of owners.” Without that attribution layer, category counts are easy to misuse.
Bondi shooters were licenced using licenced firearms as was the Porepunkah shooter. The Wieambilla shooters were unlicensed ( one suspended ) but still were able to buy ammunition locally
Must have been a dodgy supplier, because to buy ammunition legally you have to produce your licence.
Looks like he still had physical possession of the license
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-18/qld-wieambilla-police-shooting-gun-licence-nathaniel-train/101987030
A data point: In the NFA review chaired by Penny Wong a few years ago, all state and territory police ministers reported 1.7% of all firearms crime was licensed, legal owners.
That figure seems to be reflected across all crimes. About 1.7% of all crime are licensed firearms owners. One of the most law-abiding portions of the community.
Questions certainly need to be asked why more wasn't done about a person who was known to ASIO and had access to 6 legally owned guns by his father.
Seems there is a failure in the system somewhere but it is concerning the knee jerk reaction is to give police even more power and take more of our freedom every time there is an event like this, do the police need more power or do they just need to police more competently although having said that I don't expect police to be mind readers and ASIO have never said why he was on their radar but I would expect them to know a person that has come across their radar has a father that legally owns 6 guns and be able to do something about it before it turns into a tragedy.
Maybe laws need to change for that to happen because I believe at the moment legally they had no grounds to confiscate those weapons and maybe they should have that power.
I know there are a lot of hunters in the bush that make a living shooting vermin and invasive species who are really concerned about their livelihoods and the future now, it is not a time to be making rash decisions. It really does need careful and considered thought as to what happens next.
Seems our gun laws worked until they didn't, question is was this preventable under the current gun laws?
I think it was preventable. Something went wrong at the intelligence level.
NSW association and consorting laws absolutely give them power to suspend while they investigate, or revoke the father's licence, based on the son hanging out with a terrorist cell (or going to IS training camp overseas). they don't need any criminal convictions or charges to act, they have astonishing freedom to move when it comes to firearms licences, and have done so in the past.
this is not the police seeing the situation unfold and having their hands tied legally, this is someone missed a report or chose not to act within the powers and legislation they already have.
bear in mind, similar scenario for the wieambilla shooter. Though they actually revoked his licence, just never bothered to confiscate anything and let him toddle off to QLD to shoot some cops. It's gotta be a staffing issue or something for such a systemic failure
NSW police and ASIO failed, the laws are just fine.
Without our gun laws, 2 men with automatic weapons firing into a crowd of people could have killed over a hundred people conservatively.
The problem is not our gun laws but we can't admit what the problem is.
When the media talks of rapid firing pump action shot guns and straight pull rifles, I think they've forgotten what the alternative used to be.
With the strictest gun laws imaginable they could have rented 2 trucks and mowed down about as many. We're lucky they used guns.
They could have made a bomb like the Bali bombers. 220 dead including 88 Australians.
Yes, there are alternative for people that want to commit mass killing crimes like this. But even then, it would still have to be carefully planned. Having access to firearms is still the easiest option for these types of criminals. It still seems that these 2 guys should not have had access to firearms, and the system has failed again.
What planning? Keeping an eye on the event calendar and 10 minutes on google street view would've been enough. Figuring out vantage points and learning to shoot is way more involved.
We have no idea what the investigation encompassed. For all we know they could have gone through that terrorists phonebook and checked their background. There was probably nowhere near enough data to blacklist even the son, let alone the father - there isn't and shouldn't be this sort of second hand association blacklisting.
Without evidence, “two men with rapid-fire weapons could kill 100+ conservatively” is just an unsupported assertion. Casualties are not a simple function of weapon type. They depend on distance, aiming, shot placement, cover, target density, stoppages, reloads, crowd movement, medical response time, and how quickly the attacker is interrupted.
Las Vegas is the reality check. A very large number of rounds were fired into a dense crowd over minutes. The outcome was horrific, but it was not “hundreds dead,” because bullets do not translate 1:1 into kills, especially at distance with movement and partial cover. Your claim assumes an unrealistically high hit rate and lethality.
So yes, capability matters, but you do not get to invent a death toll to win an argument. If you want to argue policy, argue with real rates, real datasets, and real mechanisms of failure, like vetting, monitoring, diversion pathways, and intelligence flow.
Honestly, if I’m standing in a crowd and get shot, I’m not going to care too much that “I didn’t actually die” as a result of the gun-shot wound.
How can anyone advocating for less firearms and more restrictions be the bad guy?
but...a muslim stopped one of the muslim terrorist..
[removed]
Jfc are we just fine with islamaphobia again?
Don't paint an entire race/religion under the same brush. Unless by that same logic you'd like everyone to call you a far right Christian neonazi who assaults/murders minority groups.
Sounds like you're having trouble realising you have a problem.
Surprised Reddit slapped your comment with a [Removed by Moderator]
There's definitely some decent points in here.
Though I have to disagree with the suicide number aspects. (https://www.aihw.gov.au/suicide-self-harm-monitoring/overview/suicide-deaths) Scroll all the way to the bottom for the graphic, acknowledge the content warning for the graph and you get age standardised per capita, median age at time of death, number of events, and a bunch of other statistics.
The actual number of suicide by firearms peaked in 1987 leading to a reduction in firearm suicides until stabilising around 2005. The number of suicides per year since 2005, have been hovering in a range between 140-190 people per year. Meanwhile the people's median age of firearm as a method has increased from 41 in 1996, to about 64 in 2023.
Firearms contributed 147 deaths and hangings were 1068 in 2005, with 178 firearm suicides and 1950 hangings in 2023. Firearms as a method staying stable even with increasing firearms present doesn't really lend to the supposed idea that more guns lead to higher suicide rates, a gun isn't hanging people, they're not suitable poisons for suicide, both of which have higher rates since 1997.
Suicides, although horrible and often preventable , are not as closely related to access to firearms as other crimes. In fact they are often not even reported as “crimes”, just “no suspicious circumstances ” and a report to the coroner. People in rural or farming communities still have firearms for humane destruction of livestock, and sadly that is often the mode of choice in suicidal deaths. But average people should not have access to firearms, accept in the most extreme cases.
I agree suicides are horrible, for sake of the discussion in the cases that they are preventable, and if they are not closely tied to firearms, what are suicides tied to?
Which crimes are more closely tied to firearms as you stated earlier?
I want effective reform rather than wasted time on legislating on something that doesn't apply, better transparency of data and reporting would be good.
Legal ownership of guns in rural communities are similarly going to be restricted, I know of farmers right now scrambling to update their licenses to category C as well as change out their old safes and install new ones meaning cheaper entrance to guns as a hobby, primary producers' existing guns are being pushed into category C and D, of which case is going to mean more people are likely to obtain semi automatics which have been prohibited since 1996 if they obtain the licences. What remains to be seen is how all of this is going to be legislated and how many people it affects in what ways, as well as another buyback that is without a doubt is going to be an expensive affair for everyone.
average people can have whatever the fck they want, who are you to dictate?
No, it didn’t because I think something went wrong. I don’t not believe this man should’ve actually had a gun license.
He didn't it was revoked by asio for extremists concerns and NSW govt gave it back without proper procedure
This isn't a gun law problem it's a QC problem
Apparently it wasn't revoked, but rather took 2 years to process. Presumably there were some serious concerns for it to take that long. There are questions that need answering... Hopefully a royal commission will shed some light.
They failed in the licencing, not with weapons restrictions.
agreed. it is worrying how few people in the general public are not realising this. government is deflecting from it and they are lapping it up
All other Australian laws failed, and gun laws cannot engineer in a fix for that.
You are all fixated on the gun, it was who pulled the trigger, who whispered in their ear and who supported them in their actions that are the problem.
Fix that.
Broadly speaking, I think I agree.
That said, even though the vast majority of the response should focus on things other than gun laws, there are a few small, simple changes that make sense:
Limiting licenses to citizens, better digitisation (and inter-state/agency sharing) of the register, requiring the reissuing process pro-active instead of automatic, limits to the number of guns you are allowed to register to most license classes (especially sport licenses).
But yeah, there is a real danger that a focus on changing gun restrictions has a net-negative impact by drawing attention away from the other policy changes and focus on enforcement of existing laws that would have actually made a difference.
Everything you are suggesting is again fixating on the gun. That will fix nothing. There are illegal AK47s on the street of evert major city.
Gun control does not control the person. Everyone seems to forget the machete attacks and bans recently. What didn't change was the type of individual who wielded the weapon.
And you all are seeming to lose sight if you keep letting the government create more and more laws you are giving away your freedoms.
Just wait until the balance tips and you will be going to the beach and having police ask you for your identification for doing nothing at all. Resist? expect to be tased and arrested.
We are literally on the precipice of letting the government do massive surveillance and control.
You are all going to trade individual crime for government sanctioned crime.
Look in the mirror when you wonder where the problem started.
Start voting for a government that has strength and courage to actually fix the real issues.
The fact that there might be illegal AKs in every city is all well and good. But gun laws worked at Bondi.
Without strict gun laws, these guys could have had these AKs that you mention and many times more people would be dead.
I never said they did. In fact, i quite literally said that strengthening gun laws are the least important thing for Australian politicians to focus on.
Nobody is losing sight of the government restricting or freedom to own guns. Australians at large just agree that those restrictions are reasonable.
If my grandma had wheels she'd be a bike. Until that happens, I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist worrying about how to inflate her wheels.
The mirror? Buddy, I'm not planning to shoot random Australians for being Jewish. I'm very much not the problem you're looking for.
Why is it unsurprising that I get all the way to the end of your post and find that you don't have a single actual prescription.
"Vote differently" doesn't mean anything. Who should I vote for and why? What policies should I support if I want to prevent more attacks like this happening in the future?
Thanks for proving me right.
Buddy, stop being a baby and stake out a position.
Who should I vote for and why?
What policies should I support if I want to prevent more attacks like this happening in the future?
"Do things differently" isn't a prescription.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
“Citizens only” is policy theatrics. The Bondi offender was an Australian citizen, so it would not have prevented the attack. Citizenship is not a behavioural risk test. It just blocks lawful residents and visitors who use already regulated pathways for hunting or sport. If you want real risk reduction, fix vetting, reassessment triggers, intelligence sharing, and diversion pathways, not passports.
The one who's guns were used wasn't.
Well yeah, that would indeed be the entire point of blocking non-citizens from certain categories of gun license.
As i said:
This is onerous and disrespectful to the registrant. Either you trust them, or you don't.
Why?
The problem with limiting the number of guns is that imo 6 is the MINIMUM someone needs to cover all types of sport shooting.
How unfortunate for sports shooters...
That's the issue isn't it, were treating all gun owners as criminals instead of looking for the real problem and treating the real culprits as criminals...
We already limit the number of firearms a farmer is able to possess to 2. It would not be "treating all gun owners as criminals" to do the same for sports shooters.
We already let farmers have semi automatic weapons too, you can't bring farmers into this argument...
The point is that it's not treating farmers like criminals to restrict the number of certain guns they own.
Just like it is not *currently* treating sports shooters as criminals to restrict the number of handguns they can own.
Just like it *will* not be treating sports shooters as criminals to expand that restriction to further categories.
The issue isn’t about public safety — it’s about collective punishment. Farmers aren’t treated as criminals simply because criminals exist. Sport shooters aren’t treated as criminals because a tiny minority offend. And expanding blanket limits based on the actions of two people does exactly that. When you argue that everyone must be restricted because someone might commit a crime, you’re no longer targeting criminals — you’re redefining all lawful owners as potential ones. Laws should punish behaviour, not assume guilt by association.
Also I wasn't aware of that rule, I know plenty of farmers with over 2 legally owned guns, however I'm in Vic
Edit: I'm fairly certain that's wrong and we don't limit farmers to 2 guns
Lazy wording on my part. should have included "of certain categories"
I found no legislation to back that up either tho, but I wouldn't be against that being a law. I'd be happy with 2 of each category
https://preview.redd.it/k4s8zl82vj8g1.png?width=1081&format=png&auto=webp&s=8cef008ce5de5d6ffeca111ced3aae9e951d55d7
For what it's worth, I still think that further firearm restrictions are not only of secondary importance to, but also at risk of overshadowing the actually important changes to enforcement, license approval, and intelligence sharing that needs to happen.
But at the same time, I will lose barely an iota of sleep over the implementation of further restrictions being placed on the firearms a sports shooter can acquire.
We can fix both, it doesn't need to be one or the other.
you shouldn't fuck over sport shooters for something they had nothing to do with
"Trended sharply downwards" by following the same downwards trend that was already occurring? I'm not against licencing and such, but to claim its the only thing keeping our homicide rate down is disingenuous.
For example: that assault weapons ban you think reduced homicide rates in the US? Take an AR15, remove the ability to mount a knife, give it a traditional wooden stock and its legal under the AWB. The guns were still there.
Do gun laws help, sure. Especially background checks (which is what failed in Bondi). But the biggest thing that stops murder is having a country where people don't want to kill anyone.
That’s a lot of data to say it’s been 30 years since our last mass shooting*, and that guns don’t feature much in our society. Of course our gun laws work. Even among criminals, guns don’t feature heavily. The gun lobby is jumping on this tragedy to push for things that they want, like limits on firearms, which has nothing to do with reducing mass shootings.
*Some people count events like the Lindt siege (2 out of the 3 victims were killed by police anyway) and family killings/shootouts, but these are not the same as a mass public attack like Port Arthur and Bondi.
I dare you to do it again but this time Australia vs Switzerland.
My loose understanding of Switzerland is they are one of the most heavily armed countries, yet still heavily restricted and the population has mandatory military service and thus weapons training.
Switzerland is basically a militia model: compulsory service for most men, a big trained reserve, and civilian firearm access that is still regulated. The point is not “more guns”, it is trained citizens, accountability, and a serious mobilisation base. Australia should consider a form of national service (military or civil options) because we are undermanned and increasingly reliant on alliances and joint facilities, including rotational US forces in Darwin.
We haven't had mandatory military service since 1996. And most men don't serve
Even if you choose to serve in the army, you can do so unarmed and even if you are issued a gun most soldiers end up in non-combat roles where the firearms instruction is lackluster at best and completely absent at worst
Neither training nor military service are required to buy or own guns
Not really
We haven't had mandatory military service since 1996, and he draft only concerns 38% of the population of a given year
Even if you so choose to serve, you can do so unarmed and even if you are issued a gun most soldiers end up in non-combat roles where the firearms instruction is lackluster at best and completely absent at worst
Moreover, there are no training or military service requirement to buy or own guns
If the government was to put laws in based on the action of an individual(s) eventually we would not be able to do anything. It is the individual that needs to be held accountable. You cant punish everyone for the act of one.
When we call certain things out we are labelled as racists or whatever. Yet there is a clear pattern in which those statements are based on. I am ashamed of what is happening in this country and what it has become.
Australia’s post-1996 NFA reforms are consistent with improved firearm safety outcomes, but the honest standard is “consistent with benefit,” not “proven beyond doubt.” AIC reviews note you cannot conclusively attribute changes in firearm statistics to the NFA alone. You cannot cleanly isolate the policy effect from broader socio-demographic and long-run trends. Bondi does not “disprove” the NFA. One event does not erase decades of per-capita data. What it does highlight is where the remaining risk lives: licensing suitability, monitoring, intelligence flow, and data integrity.
Bondi is an argument for tighter national architecture, not reactive reclassification. Australia needs a consistent national approach across states and territories, a modern national registry with strong data standards, and a permissions model that separates civilian visibility from restricted law enforcement and defence access on the same backbone. It also needs an explicit intelligence pass-down pipeline from ASIO to AFP to state police with clear reassessment triggers, plus periodic suitability checks that test behaviour and risk indicators rather than aesthetics.
None of that requires abolishing hunting licensing or attacking supervised junior participation rules. “Appearance” laws are not a risk test. Arbitrary caps like “no one needs six firearms” are politics, not screening. Magazine limits are capability theatre if the vetting and intelligence pipeline stays broken.
This post is overconfident: it mistakes correlation for causation, then uses definition swaps and after-the-fact turning points to sell the story.
US 1997 claim is misleading. Printz (1997) did not “kill background checks.” It struck down the interim Brady requirement that local CLEOs run the checks. The interim Brady provisions ended when NICS went live on Nov 30, 1998. Background checks continued under the permanent Brady system.
Supreme Court summary of Printz https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/898/
ATF Brady law explainer https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/laws-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives/gun-control-act/brady-law
FBI NICS ops report (states Nov 30, 1998 start) https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/operations_report_98_99.pdf
Definitions are being swapped to manufacture “10x” and “23x” claims. “Mass shooting” has no single definition. US media datasets often count 4+ shot (injured or killed). FBI reporting is usually “active shooter” and “mass killing” concepts, not the same thing. Australia datasets often use fatality thresholds like 4+ killed in a single incident. If you do not apply the same definition to both countries, the comparison is meaningless.
Show the per-capita rate using the same definition, the same inclusion rules (injured vs killed), and the same time window, otherwise the ratio is just rhetoric.
CRS report on definitions (PDF) https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48276/R48276.1.pdf
FBI active shooter resources https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/active-shooter-safety-resources
AIC comparison paper https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-06/draft_of_trends_issues_paper_mass_shootings_and_firearm_control_comparing_australia_and_the_united_states_submitted_to_peer_review.pdf
The “15 inflection points” and “astronomically small probability” line is bad statistics. Those “inflection points” are eyeballed after the fact, not objectively detected, not pre-specified, and not independent. With enough year-to-year variability and enough policy dates, you can always cherry-pick a “turning point” that fits the story.
Suicide method trends post-1996 need careful wording. Firearm suicide fell after the 1996 reforms. Over the same period, hanging rose, but AIHW shows the rise in hanging starts from the late 1980s and continues while firearm suicide declines, including continuing down from 1996. So you can describe the divergence, but you cannot automatically claim the NFA “caused” hanging.
AIHW suicide deaths by mechanism time series (1907–2023, interactive) https://www.aihw.gov.au/suicide-self-harm-monitoring/overview/suicide-deaths
Chapman et al (1979–2003) tested for substitution and reported no evidence of substitution effects for suicides or homicides https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2704353/
US firearm death stats are not one clean bucket, and WISQARS shows it clearly. In CDC WISQARS, firearm deaths are split by intent: Unintentional, Homicide/Assault, Legal intervention (law enforcement), Suicide, Undetermined, Total. There is also a combined option “Homicide and Legal Intervention,” so if someone quotes “firearm homicide” you have to ask if they used Homicide only or the combined bucket.
WISQARS firearm deaths by intent, 2023 (US) https://wisqars.cdc.gov/reports/?o=MORT&y1=2023&y2=2023&t=0&i=2&m=20890&g=00&me=0&s=0&r=0&ry=2&e=0&yp=65&a=ALL&g1=0&g2=199&a1=0&a2=199&r1=INTENT&r2=NONE&r3=NONE&r4=NONE
JHU overview and definitions https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/data/annual-gun-violence-data
People fixate on how many firearms lawful owners have, but there’s no simple one-to-one relationship where higher lawful ownership automatically means higher crime. What matters is diversion: theft, leakage, storage failures, and whether agencies can actually see risk early enough to act. A lot of the public debate also leans on datasets that are incomplete or inconsistent, especially once you get outside ordinary civilian registration counts and into what is or is not publicly reported (military and law enforcement).
Collectors are another example of why raw counts mislead. “Firearms owned” can include items that are permanently inoperable or held under restrictive conditions. Same for paintball markers in many jurisdictions: they are regulated like firearms, so they inflate “ownership” counts without being the same kind of risk signal as a working centrefire rifle.
On gel blasters, the jurisdiction claims need to be precise. Queensland Police state you do not need a QLD Weapons Act licence to possess a gel blaster in Queensland. In Western Australia, police list gel blasters under their weapons framework and they are generally treated as prohibited weapons. NSW Police state gel blasters are illegal in NSW and cannot be registered. Victoria Police state gel blasters are imitation firearms and approvals are not issued for public ownership, meaning there is no lawful reason to possess or use them. South Australia treats gel blasters within its firearms categories, tied to paintball licensing and registration. Tasmania Police state that if the gel blaster is an air pistol, a Category H licence is required, and you still need a genuine reason like any other firearm. In the Northern Territory, authorities have stated imitation firearms including gel blasters are illegal to possess. ACT Policing have stated gel blasters are classed as prohibited firearms and it is an offence to possess them.
This sort is very much complicated by murder/homicide/gun death terminology confusion between sources (murder always criminal, homicide includes murder and justified killing, gun deaths dominated by suicide).
As for trends and law efficiency, NZ didn't ban semi-autos until after Christchurch shooting, and their trends are not that different from ours.
Americans murder more people with non-gun means that Australians total. It's very hard to make any sort of conclusion by comparing the 3 countries other than it's always more about people than guns.
it’s not the gun laws for fuck sake we still use knives you can’t ban everything use your brain get asio and all the agencies to get off their arses and do the job properly and don’t be so stupid
There was a pretty clear steady drop in gun deaths from ~1979 to ~2005, then a slight decrease in the rate, but it continued.
All laws 'fail' sometimes. Speeding traffic is policed and punished, occasionally people do it, occasionally people are killed. Pools must be fenced, occasionally people don't do it, occasionally gates are left open.
Australian legal gun fatalities are around 4 or 5 per year. WIsh that didn't happen. I wish the 1300 people killed by cars each year didn't happen more though.
There's a limit to how far we go seeking perfectly safe communities, we need energy, engagement, enthusiasm for hobbies, activities, challenges to be a worthwhile community.
It makes sense, same as if we want to reduce the road toll, passing legislation that reduced the number of cars in the road by 50% would reduce the toll. Making knives illegal would reduce the number of knife crimes.
Would making religions illegal reduce the number of deaths as a result of religious extremism? If so, I would vote for that.
Living without guns for most people is very easy compared to living without knives or cars.
Soon they'll come for our hands. Can't shoot, can't stab, can't drive and can't pray.
[removed]
Slurs, stereotyping or demeaning individuals based on their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual preference, or disability are prohibited. Derisive references to the third world included. No incitement or threatening violence. Our full list of rules for reference.
Gun legislation isn't only about gun buybacks - they're often only a minor part of the story whereas cooling off periods, police checks, safe storage requirements, restrictions on ownership by criminals, mentally unstable people, meth-heads, domestic abusers, terrorists etc are major parts of sensible gun control.
Also, you're missing the bit about cars being designed to transport people while guns are designed to kill.
Risk mitigation is always about minimising risk to acceptable levels yet cars are regulated more than guns in the US. That's not sensible.
Cars and knives serve a purpose beyond it's use as a weapon. Banning guns completely for anyone except for those where it's necessary (so no sports shooters, amateur hunters and gun club members) would have almost zero downsides (not saying we should do that, just an example). Banning cars would be a huge societal change. Knives are useful in their preparation of food, opening things etc, banning them would have a significant negative impact.
So drawing the comparison is ridiculous. The cost vs benefit of banning knives, cars, baseball bats, hammers etc is not comparable to that of guns.
The car and knife analogy is valid. You only need kitchen knives or a box cutter, yet knives are used in a lot of assaults. The same logic can be applied to cars: “why does anyone in a city need a private vehicle when public transport exists?” That is why your “ban firearms except for farmers” framing is flawed. It’s not a behavioural risk test, it’s just a broad restriction that misses the mechanisms that actually drive harm.
And on “almost zero downsides”: that isn’t true. Firearms have legitimate regulated uses here (primary production, pest control, sport, hunting). A blanket ban shifts demand into theft and illicit markets and costs a fortune to enforce, while not fixing the actual failure points. If you want risk reduction, target vetting, reassessment triggers, registry data integrity, diversion, and intelligence sharing.
They are, that's why there are rules and regulations as to what kind of knives you can own and buy.
I explained this, it's because the economic and social cost is so high. Our cities are designed around cars, we have roads going everywhere, the majority of people on cities commute via car. We'd need to completely redesign our cities, build extensive new public transit on place which would cost an astronomical amount of money. It's possible but the cost is so high.
Yes, there would be downsides. I explained there would be almost zero downsides for banning firearms for those in which it is not necessary for them to own them. Sports shooters for example don't need guns, it's essentially an activity for them. The downsides of banning sports shooters from participating in their sport and owning a gun has significantly less down side, then rebuilding the city and public transit systems. The comparison is beyond absurdity.
It does. That's the same with banning most things. But as with banning most things you get less of it. Banning guns leads to less gun ownership and less gun use relatively speaking, and this is supported by the evidence.
I agree, this is better than just say a blanket ban. All I was pointing out is that banning guns for those who have a license on the premise of "member of gun club" or "sports shooter" has significantly less drawbacks than banning cars or knives, so the comparison is so ridiculous and frankly not made in good faith.
“Need” is not a behavioural risk test. It’s a subjective line that can justify banning any low-risk hobby the speaker dislikes.
By that logic we should do the same with knives. Ordinary people only “need” kitchen knives. No pocket knives, no multitools. If you need a knife for work, only the business buys it, stores it, and issues it. That’s obvious overreach, even though knives are used in a lot of assaults. Knives are regulated too, yet widely available and misused. Regulation does not equal elimination.
Same principle applies to firearms. The policy question is marginal risk reduction per restriction, not whether something is “necessary.” Licensed sport shooters are already subject to licensing, background checks, secure storage requirements, and ongoing compliance. Banning them does not target criminals. It removes lawful, traceable ownership and shifts focus away from what actually fails in real cases: vetting quality, reassessment triggers, registry integrity, diversion (theft/leakage), and intelligence sharing.
Also “supported by the evidence” needs specifics: which dataset, which outcome (homicide, suicide, trafficking), what effect size, and what time window. “Less legal ownership” is not automatically “less harm” unless you show the chain.
And yes, sport shooting is an Olympic discipline. Calling it “unnecessary” is exactly the point: “need” is an aesthetic filter, not a safety test. Bondi doesn’t disprove the NFA. A single event doesn’t cancel nearly 30 years of per-capita trends.
Interesting, since 40% of homicides are alcohol related, we could save many more lives by banning alcohol. Let's also ban tobacco as it serves no useful purpose. There is no need for alcohol or tobacco so a full ban would be justified in health issues alone. Banning alcohol and tobacco would save more lives every year than 100 Bondi events
I already addressed this.
That's right, but because some gun ownership is unnecessary (according to me, I'm aware you disagree) the cost/negative of banning those unnecessary guns is lower, therefore it's easier to justify even if the benefit is considered to be low as well.
I agree with your broader point here. What I would say though, is more illegal guns were originally legally owned but we're stolen. Reducing guns means reduced access to guns even for those that are getting them illegally.
Ceteris paribus, gun control measures, and restrictions on gun ownership leads to reduced rates of gun violence.
I'm aware, but being unnecessary would mean the cost of banning the unnecessary thing is lower then banning a necessary thing like cars.
A buyback isn’t a magic spell. The 1996 program was funded by about $500m via a temporary 0.2% Medicare levy, and a modern version would be multi-billion once you price compensation, collection, admin, compliance, and disposal. Pretending it’s “almost zero downsides” ignores downstream hits to lawful businesses and regional jobs, while criminals don’t line up to surrender anything.
And buybacks don’t just pay individuals. Dealers and clubs hold substantial inventory and capital tied up in firearms and gear. If you’re going to compulsorily acquire it, you need transparent fair-market valuation rules and a review process, not “we reckon it’s worth X.”
Honestly, this is the same policy-by-ignorance logic as the NSW premier talking about “belt-fed shotguns.”
I think the answer is yes they worked, but there’s scope for improvement. If this happened in America, they would have been able to easily access semi automatic guns like AR-15 which would have enabled them to get off way more rounds than what they did. Quite why a non hunter/farmer needs 6 rifles/guns is a different question.
More rounds fired ≠ more deaths. Outcomes depend on range, accuracy, cover, interruption, and medical response. And “need 6 guns” is politics, not a safety test. Screening, monitoring, and diversion controls matter more.
Over 90 percent of us don't have guns so banning them wouldn't make much difference just make us safer
The amount of islamaphobia I'm seeing in upvoted comments lately is insane. The amount of downvotes I'm seeing on comments calling that out is insane.
Are we just alright with blatant racism again? I haven't seen it supported out in the open on Aus subreddits in a long time. I mean come the fuck on, the man who tackled the shooter was a fucking Muslim.
Hardcore extremists are terrible no matter who they are. But how about instead of focusing on the lesser threat, those people look into the bigger danger of far right/white nationalist extremism.
There's a ton of racism in aus I'm not denying that, but I haven't seen it supported like this in a while.
I really hope it's bots with an agenda as many of the accounts are recently created, but if they're just burners this makes me so fuckin ashamed.
It's quite simple: the less accessible something is, the harder (though not impossible) to obtain. And if something is harder to obtain, people going through (short, temporary or otherwise non-permanent) periods of mental, negative, nasty or evil thoughts or plans, accessibility becomes relevant.
The gun nuts can put whatever spin on it they like but it’s pretty simple, more guns equals more gun deaths.
People need to understand one thing...gun laws DO work!! Yes unfortunately 15 people died but thats because all they had was a shotgun and a bolt action rifle. Now imagine those two cunts had AR15s. Single shot assault rifles with 30 round mags. You can do a LOT MORE damage with AR-type weapons.
I'll be honest, I don't know why the fk people need weapons...other than farmers...and even then. Fk em off.
As somebody who has real life experience in the trenches of the underworld, I can tell you now that any new gun laws will do jack shit.
The only guns that will be bought back will be registered and legal firearms off law abiding citizens
The remaining firearms will find their way to the streets by being stolen by the criminals and drug addicts who use them.
Fact.
Great writeup, and graphs.
In terms of mass shootings, the significant drop in them post port arthor shows that they work. Not perfectly, nothing works perfectly unfortunately, but theres significantly less than there used to be.
If you're not a farmer or an active shooting range member you have no business legally owning a gun. It's also crazy that non-citizens were allowed to own guns; I'm glad they're toughening the laws. Anyone with any criminal history or on any watch list should also not be allowed to own them.
This carries an impressive amount of certainty and inflection point stacking for a topic as complex as this.
It also reads less like a discussion starter and more like a narrative boundary marker, with the hallmarks of a modern communications strategy and some help from a resource intensive assistance model.
*sigh* When someone doesn't just post the usual snarky one-liners, some people immediately jump to trying to brush it off as AI or paid-for astroturfing. Very frustrating.
There is such a thing as people like myself who enjoy talking about meaty subjects and who enjoy taking the time to properly research the topics that interest them.
Have a look at my comment history and you'll see I have many and varied interests that I always thoroughly research. Maybe that comes from working in the University sector for the past 3 decades or maybe I am a little on the spectrum. 8-)
Agenda 2030 - disarmament
The UN want firearms to be banned
That's not true. Here in Australia if you need a gun (eg farmer, roo-shooter, gun club member etc) you can get one but with sensible controls such as cooling off periods, police checks, safe storage requirements etc.
I've had lots of fun shooting rabbits and foxes etc on the farms of friends.
We just don’t let meth heads, people with criminal records, mental issues etc have them and they need to be secured in gun safes etc.
And penalties for crimes with guns are that much greater that criminals don’t think it’s worth it having them.
It’s wonderful not having to fear if that road rager, domestic violence offender, petty thief, mental case, incel and not have active shooter drills and school shootings every week.
Ok cooker.
Check it out it’s on their website
Before you throw that “cooker” term , have a look for yourself 🤫
Way to completely misunderstand a voluntary non-binding plan for sustainable development, cooker.
"sustainable development" bro is that what you think we have been moving towards all these years... maybe the cooker was inside you this entire time
If you honestly believe that 😂 Geez no wonder why humanity is cooked when people like you fall for their lies and deception 🐑
I guess you Also fell for Covid scam ? And climate change
Ironic you're calling people a sheep, while seemingly holding the same cooker views as all the other cookers.
Not everything is a conspiracy mate.
I’m sure people like you thought the exact same thing about their governments in communist Russia , NK , China and look what atrocities happened there.
Who’s the cookers ? If I’m counting they’ve been correct in nearly everything since 2020. Whist the brainwashed have been incorrect 😎
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
Like what?
The sheep emoji is just chef's kiss.
Seriously though, you're mentally ill. Seek help.
lol I don’t want to argue with someone who’s brainwashed
“Cookers” have a good strike rate 😏
The sheep have been incorrect in nearly everything
Im happy with my judgements. Can’t say the same with you lot who are complaining now
ThE LizArD PeOPlE ArE CoMInG TO pRoBE ME!!!!
Probably the most damning statistic is the ratio of mass shooting deaths between the countries closely matches the ratio of the number of guns in each country.
Which massively refutes the trope that "guns don't kill people, people kill people".
People without guns have a much harder time killing other people (or themselves).
A gun is a powerful force multiplier
https://preview.redd.it/tdx051ahcg8g1.png?width=747&format=png&auto=webp&s=b15f824195193fc09eed4b1f1cc317e193c51b4a
Not sure what this is supposed to mean. The total number of guns is what I was referring to.
This graphic seems to go out of its way to avoid that there's more guns now than in 1996 and vastly more than 1998.
Lol your last sentence? There are less people with guns now?
There are more guns. More guns in the country. That's what I said.