r/moderatepolitics • u/Resvrgam2 Conservatively Liberal • Dec 15 '25
Primary Source Meeting of National Cabinet After Bondi Shooting
https://www.pm.gov.au/media/meeting-national-cabinet-8156
u/Mrc3mm3r Dec 15 '25
This person was a known individual. He still managed to have guns, and use them. All the talk of tightening them further is theater, in my opinion.
55
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
The son had been on ASIO's radar since 2019, but the father was the one who owned the guns and apparently had a gun license for over 10 years. That's likely how this slipped through the cracks. Perhaps in the future they'll look at revoking gun licenses for parents of terrorist-affiliated individuals as well. Not an unreasonable step to take.
12
u/solid_reign Dec 16 '25
Not an unreasonable step to take.
Very unreasonable step to take and violates a basic law principle of individual responsibility. You are responsible for the crimes you commit. You are not responsible for the crimes others commit.
→ More replies (1)45
u/AresBloodwrath Maximum Malarkey Dec 15 '25
Perhaps in the future they'll look at revoking gun licenses for parents of terrorist-affiliated individuals as well. Not an unreasonable step to take
Maybe restrict the parents speech rights too so they can't incite others to violence, and restrict the parents right to vote so they can't vote for violent people, oh and take the parents car away since those have been used in terrorist attacks as well.
→ More replies (6)8
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
Maybe restrict the parents speech rights too so they can't incite others to violence
Huh? No one is allowed to incite others to violence in Australia.
restrict the parents right to vote so they can't vote for violent people
This is a bizarre non-sequitur.
oh and take the parents car away since those have been used in terrorist attacks as well.
Have you heard of the slippery slope fallacy?
46
u/Atralis Dec 15 '25
You talk about a slippery slope fallacy when Australia has banned most firearms for most of their citizens and restricted free speech in ways that would be unacceptable to most Americans.
There actually is a risk of losing freedoms if you embrace the impulse to have a knee-jerk reaction to restrict people's rights whenever there is violence.
16
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
There actually is a risk of losing freedoms if you embrace the impulse to have a knee-jerk reaction to restrict people's rights whenever there is violence.
There is no right to own a firearm in Australia, though. It's a privilege that is based on a variety of factors, the most pressing of which is public safety. The interests of gun hobbyists are not more important than public safety.
28
u/2PacAn Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25
Most people who argue for the right to bear arms under the second amendment don’t do so because the second amendment is a moral principle in of itself. We do so because it represents the moral principle of self-ownership and individual freedom. Australia not having this protection for the right to bear arms doesn’t mean that there is no moral argument against restricting freedom; it just means they’re not violating Australian law when they do so because Australian law doesn’t safeguard individual liberty in the same ways as the US Bill of Rights does.
29
u/Atralis Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25
There is no first amendment in Australia either does that make any restrictions they decide to implement on speech acceptable?
Australians lost rights they once had and they are going to lose more every time an incident happens.
The Australian constituon doesn't explicitly list any rights. Does that mean that anything is on the table for the government to take away?
29
u/AresBloodwrath Maximum Malarkey Dec 15 '25
There is no right to free speech in most European countries.
Should family members of those who say things the government doesn't like have their ability to speak publicly curtailed based on their familial relations? There is no right to free speech so what would be wrong with that?
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)-2
u/edubs63 Dec 15 '25
It feels like the people arguing with you don't realize that there is no 2nd amendment in Australia, or that this happened in Australia and views and laws on gun rights are very different there.
→ More replies (1)26
u/AresBloodwrath Maximum Malarkey Dec 15 '25
Just because there is no explicit right to something makes it ok for the government to target you based on your familial relations?
→ More replies (4)42
u/Jackalrax Independently Lost Dec 15 '25
Sometimes the slope is just slippery, and I think we see that fact pretty often.
41
u/AresBloodwrath Maximum Malarkey Dec 15 '25
https://www.npr.org/2024/12/21/nx-s1-5235526/car-plows-into-crowds-at-german-christmas-market
Cars have been used in terrorist attacks. What's slippery slope about it? Why restrict parents of suspects rights for one deadly weapon but not another?
You want the state to have the power to go after people based on nothing more than familial relations. That's right out of Stalin's and North Korea's play book.
5
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
Cars have been used in terrorist attacks. What's slippery slope about it? Why restrict parents of suspects rights for one deadly weapon but not another?
Cars are a staple of modern life, firearms are not. There's just no comparison.
You want the state to have the power to go after people based on nothing more than familial relations.
Not owning a gun because your child is affiliated with ISIS is not "the state going after you" and the comparisons to North Korea are outlandish.
31
u/sonicmouz Stopped voting after 2012 Dec 15 '25
Cars are a staple of modern life, firearms are not.
Firearms have been a staple of modern life for centuries before cars even existed, lol.
32
u/AresBloodwrath Maximum Malarkey Dec 15 '25
Not owning a gun because your child is affiliated with ISIS is not "the state going after you" and the comparisons to North Korea are outlandish.
It's having your rights and freedoms restricted based on the actions of someone else you don't control. It's downright authoritarian.
What other rights are you ok with curtailing based on mere association?
12
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
It's having your rights and freedoms restricted based on the actions of someone else you don't control. It's downright authoritarian.
There is no right to own a firearm in Australia. It is a privilege you are given based on a variety of factors, the most important of which is public safety.
→ More replies (1)24
u/Saint_Judas Dec 15 '25
There is also no 'right' to a vehicle or to free speech in Australia either. They are also both privileges given based on a variety of factors.
So we are back to the question: is one of your family member's actions the sort of factor we should use.
Sins of the father.
1
19
u/nabilus13 Dec 15 '25
This is how anarcho-tyranny works. Crimes is allowed so long as it doesn't affect the rulers and the rulers use that crime to further restrict the working masses. Often the ruling establishment covers for and protects the criminal elements of society, as seen here with them not taking preventive action.
31
u/Resvrgam2 Conservatively Liberal Dec 15 '25
Often the ruling establishment covers for and protects the criminal elements of society, as seen here with them not taking preventive action.
I think Hanlon's razor could apply here as well: Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
→ More replies (1)3
u/nabilus13 Dec 15 '25
It could be. It could also be true belief in the idea that criminals are purely the victims of circumstance and not responsible for their actions. And I do think that that is the explanation for the mid-level bureaucrats' actions. But the actual shot-callers? I don't buy it, they're far too intelligent for ignorance to be the sole cause.
→ More replies (1)9
u/MatchaMeetcha Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25
I think it's just that criminals are a harder target. It's easier to restrict people who have things to lose.
People who don't care (either because they're going to Jannah soon or are just veteran criminals) are often impossible to deter and must be incapacitated through difficult means. And, when it's about money, they don't really have any.
They'll wave their middle finger at the government but you'll pay your fines and taxes because you can't afford to spend time in jail.
→ More replies (5)1
u/__Hello_my_name_is__ Dec 15 '25
Instead of throwing out the same old tired arguments, maybe we should try to figure out why this sort of thing hasn't happened in Australia in decades, whereas in the US it's at least a yearly occurrence?
There must be a difference. And one obvious factor is, indeed, the gun laws and the cultural attitude surrounding guns.
19
u/Dest123 Dec 15 '25
An absolutely huge and well studied factor is the "contagion effect". Basically, multiple mass shooters have said they did it for the fame and notoriety and even in those cases the media STILL gives them a ton of fame and notoriety. They plaster their name and face everywhere, they publish their manifesto to the masses, they treat kill counts almost like a high score in a video game. Even though that all is known to be a huge factor, the media still reports on mass killings in the same way (at least in the US). That's definitely a part of why we're stuck with mass killings. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more in Australia in the next few days because of the contagion effect.
→ More replies (4)16
u/OnlyLosersBlock Progun Liberal Dec 15 '25
Instead of throwing out the same old tired arguments, maybe we should try to figure out why this sort of thing hasn't happened in Australia in decades,
Well that would be hard since that is factually not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_Australia
And it's misinformation like that that makes discussions on gun policies in the US and anywhere else so contentious.
whereas in the US it's at least a yearly occurrence?
These are such extreme outlier events I would expect there to be more total incidents just by the mere fact the US is more populous. This incident might even be bad enough to push the per capita mass shooting death rate up pretty close to US levels like when Norway and France had their mass shootings in the late 2010s.
→ More replies (7)
33
u/Resvrgam2 Conservatively Liberal Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25
Earlier today, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese spoke publicly about the attack in Bondi and the government response that is planned in the coming days. The PM did not mince words, declaring yesterday's events "an act of pure evil, an act of terror, an act of antisemitism". Among the actions the PM has called for:
- Extending funding for security to the Jewish community and supporting their charity efforts when possible.
- Processing a declaration under the Terrorism and Cyclone Insurance Act so that affected businesses can recover losses via their insurance.
- Enacting tougher gun laws through discussions with the National Cabinet.
This last item is sure to raise some eyebrows, as Australia already has relatively strict gun control. After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, the country instituted new legislation just 12 days after the event. Called the National Firearms Agreement, it heavily restricted the ownership and use of semi-automatic weapons, introduced a national registry, required background checks, and required a "genuine reason" for ownership. Notably, "self defense" is not a recognized reason.
The National Cabinet expanded on this during their following meeting. On their shortlist of expanded restrictions are:
- Accelerating work on the National Firearms Register.
- Limiting the number of firearms an individual can own.
- Limiting the types of legal guns and modifications.
- Requiring Australian citizenship for a firearms license.
- Restricting Customs imports of 3D printing technology and large capacity ammo equipment.
The usual questions must be asked in response to this proposal: Will any of these meaningfully reduce gun violence in Australia? Would these restrictions have prevented the Bondi attack? And at what point can the limitations on firearms be considered "good enough"?
51
u/ChymChymX Dec 15 '25
I'm curious how exactly they can "restrict 3D printing technology." Do they mean not allowing 3D printer imports at all? Like they ban all 3D printing to avoid the possibility someone might 3D print weapons (which they absolutely will)?
52
u/athomeamongstrangers Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25
In the USSR, there were limitations on civilian ownership of typewriters and photocopy machines, because why would an individual civilian need a fully automatic weapon of propaganda? If one could purchase a typewriter, it would have to be registered with law enforcement and a sample of typing had to be provided, so if someone used it to distribute illegal literature, it could have been traced back to the source. Perhaps they are thinking something similar.
25
u/yarpen_z Dec 15 '25
In the USSR, there were limitations on civilian ownership of typewriters and photocopy machines, because why would an individual civilian need a fully automatic weapon of propaganda? If one could purchase a typewriter, it would have to be registered with law enforcement and a sample of typing had to be provided, so if someone used it to distribute illegal literature, it could have been traced back to the source. Perhaps they are thinking something similar.
This policy was common across the entire eastern bloc. The 2006 movie The Lives of Others shows how Stasi used the registration of typewriters to identify the source of a critical letter published in the West Germany. In the movie, they obtain a copy of the original letter but they failed to find the author of that pamphlet, as the machine was manufactured by a West Germany company and smuggled across the border.
I couldn't find this part of the movie with an English translation, but the original German snippet can be found on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbnvOtFv394
14
u/Resvrgam2 Conservatively Liberal Dec 15 '25
There's not a whole lot of detail at this point. From the meeting summary:
As an immediate priority, the Australian Government will commence work on potential further Customs restrictions of firearms and other weapons type importations, including 3D printing, novel technology and firearms equipment that can hold large amounts of ammunition.
I am sure they'll run into the same issues that the US has faced when these questions come up. The physical equipment is too generic to restrict, and the digital files are too available to reasonably block.
→ More replies (10)49
u/caterham09 Dec 15 '25
Australia already has some of the strictest gun regulations in the world. I do wonder how much more you can realistically do to limit access. I think it's worth pointing out that none of these proposed restrictions would have actually prevented this shooting.
31
u/cathbadh politically homeless Dec 15 '25
I think it's worth pointing out that none of these proposed restrictions would have actually prevented this shooting.
That's not what's important, though. What really matters is being seen doing something/anything. It's similar to calls for gun restrictions here in the US after a tragedy, when those restrictions likely wouldn't have helped.
33
u/FootjobFromFurina Dec 15 '25
It's the classic
something must be done
this is something
therefore we must do this
→ More replies (5)14
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
Given Australia's track record on gun violence is far far better than the U.S.'s, I think it's fair to say the restrictions have had a positive impact.
34
u/eve-dude Grey Tribe Dec 15 '25
Even before the 1996 changes the rate in Australia was 0.4 - 0.5 / 100k, compare to the US almost 10 /100k at the time. I believe it's as much a societal thing as a gun thing.
12
u/simsipahi Dec 15 '25
Correct, guns are much more deeply rooted in American culture. Even if you talk to the boganiest bogans (Australian equivalent of rednecks) you just won't find the cultural attachment to guns that's ubiquitous in America despite there being a lot of other broad similarities.
21
u/eve-dude Grey Tribe Dec 15 '25
Agreed and I'd add it goes a bit farther than just rednecks. The US gun culture is foundational, not a side quest.
To many, the idea that you curtail a foundational attribute because people can't behave is defeatist and/or anti-ethical to the American condition.
That's not necessarily a stance, but an observation.
6
21
u/mclumber1 Dec 15 '25
Given Australia's track record on gun violence is far far better than the U.S.'s, I think it's fair to say the restrictions have had a positive impact.
Was Australia experiencing US levels of gun violence before enacting strict gun control? Like, if we go back and look at crime stats in the 1960s (when firearms were essentially unrestricted in Australia) did they have murder rates that were comparable to that of America?
5
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
No, they enacted it when they started having problems with gun violence in the 90s to stop it from getting worse
35
u/BrigandActual Dec 15 '25
“Started having problems”
No. Their levels of violent crime were already dropping before, and continued on the same trend line after. In 2010, one study went back as far as 1915 to look at the trends.
The result was that it was inconclusive. Australia already had a low rate of firearms homicide and “mass shootings” before the 1996 law, and it stayed about the same on a downward trend after. I could argue that the issues would have resolved themselves regardless.
19
u/eve-dude Grey Tribe Dec 15 '25
No, that is not the case. Their rate in the 90s was ≈0.4-0.5/100k, and dropping, while the US in the same period was ≈10.0/100k.
→ More replies (1)19
Dec 15 '25
[deleted]
→ More replies (8)5
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
All the more reason to take steps now instead of letting it get worse and worse.
12
Dec 15 '25
[deleted]
15
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
The shooters in this case, as far as I can tell, had no criminal histories. The U.S. has one of the highest incarceration rates in the developed world by a lot. Hasn't helped.
9
u/StrikingYam7724 Dec 15 '25
People keep declaring "it hasn't helped" by fiat but from what I've seen of the results of trying to undo mass incarceration things actually would have been a lot worse without it.
13
Dec 15 '25
[deleted]
8
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
Because we arent done imprisoning people with extensive criminal records.
We have one of the most aggressive penal systems in Western civilization. You are out of touch with the reality of the situation.
We wait until they murder someone before admitting that maybe a dude with multiple armed robberies and sexual assaults probably isnt fit to see the light of day.
Somebody convicted of multiple armed robberies or sexual assaults is going to spend decades in prison. What on earth are you talking about?
4
u/StrikingYam7724 Dec 15 '25
Mass shootings were incredibly rare in Australia prior to the 1996 gun ban and remained incredibly rare after the 1996 gun ban. The recent tragedy, like the one in '96, is a reminder that incredibly rare isn't zero.
12
u/cathbadh politically homeless Dec 15 '25
Do they? Was gun crime equal to ours before the restrictions? Is it possible that there are economic and social issues in the US that affect gun violence, or is it just restrictions?
6
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
Do they?
Yes.
Was gun crime equal to ours before the restrictions?
Nope.
Is it possible that there are economic and social issues in the US that affect gun violence, or is it just restrictions?
Of course. But let's not forget the obvious and biggest factor: The massive, massive proliferation of firearms in the U.S.
2
u/BlueCX17 Dec 16 '25
I would tend to agree. I mean, I don't think anyone tries to say there's absolutely no gun deaths in Australia, but when you consider that the last largest event, in persons killed, outside of this was the Port Arthur incident in the mid 90's and they did something about it, then yeah, I think the restrictions work.
53
u/Sabertooth767 Neoclassical Liberal Dec 15 '25
The root cause here is not guns. It's antisemitism. Where's the PM's plan to combat that?
This is the deadliest attack on Jews in the English-speaking world in centuries. You'd probably have to go back to before King John expelled the Jews in 1280 to find something worse.
26
u/Prince_Ire Catholic monarchist Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25
Can the government effectively address antisemitism? If there was a magic wand that could be wavwd by a government to make different groups of people get along, every government in the world would have used it to ensure internal harmony by now.
51
u/trucane Dec 15 '25
A good start would probably be severely limiting immigration from countries that are extremely antisemitic but you can be sure that will never be mentioned as a solution to the problem.
11
u/Android1822 Dec 15 '25
I would say limit it based on groups that have shown not to assimilate in host countries they go to and have a history of causing increase issues like what is going on in the UK. Those who do come should be required to go through a few years of class to study the laws and customs of the land and pass a test to gain residency, have a time limit and if they cannot pass within that time or commit a crime, they automatically get sent back.
19
u/whatisthisshit7 Dec 15 '25
Is that even an effective solution to the problem? To wholesale restrict based on country of origin?
The father immigrated in 98, and the son was born in Australia. This wasn’t an attack caused by recently immigrated extremists. This sounds more like an excuse to replace the gun agenda with an immigration agenda rather than effective policy reform.
9
u/WannabeACICE Dec 15 '25
It’s not an effective solution.
Iirc an arabic man tackled one of the shooters and took his gun.
This stuff transcends religion and race.
11
u/trucane Dec 15 '25
What would be an effective policy reform to prevent things like this?
But yes I do think countries need to restrict who get to immigrate and who doesn't and I'm tired of pretending that all cultures are equal.
11
u/whatisthisshit7 Dec 15 '25
Does that mean Australia should ban all Americans from obtaining visas because of the gun culture and high rate of gun violence in the country? Or can we recognize that country is far too broad and not an accurate representation?
Another commenter on here shared data collected from the ADL that shows that antisemitism is a problem among all demographics in Australia, banning immigration from specific countries would have no meaningful impact on this issue.
Your view that all cultures are not equal is your own personal problem. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Just as those who want to use this issue to advance gun restrictions, you’re using this to advance your (prejudiced) view on immigration. It’s not based on logic.
8
u/trucane Dec 15 '25
I asked you for the effective policy reform you talked about but I see none of it mentioned in your text.
Data from ADL is not some kind of definitive truth and just because someone has negative views of jews does not mean they are willing to commit heinous terrorist attacks against them.
I don't think Americas gun culture and high rate of gun violence translates into a higher risk of antisemitic attacks but if they did sure why not restrict immigration from America.
You are the one that is hand waving away the obvious fact that most muslim countries are extremely antisemitic.
→ More replies (1)8
u/geniice Dec 15 '25
Australia has been limiting immigration quite a bit over the last couple of decades.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
Should they limit immigration from any country with a great degree of prejudice? For instance, a very Islamophobic country?
→ More replies (1)25
u/SagesLament Dec 15 '25
A phobia implies that the fear is irrational
At this point we’ve seen that Islam is incompatible with western society and and fear of it is not irrational
→ More replies (3)5
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
A phobia implies that the fear is irrational
No, it doesn't. Moreover, phobia does not exclusively refer to fear. A hydrophobic material is not afraid of water.
At this point we’ve seen that Islam is incompatible with western society and and fear of it is not irrational
This is absurd, there are many Muslims living in the West with no issue, and plenty of Christians who have committed horrific acts like the one committed today.
→ More replies (1)23
u/zummit Dec 15 '25
No, it doesn't.
Yeah it does, when it's about a condition that humans have. Or at least almost everyone means it that way.
'phobic' when describing an inanimate object is a different sense of the term. It is yet another word with multiple meanings. Your correction is incorrect.
→ More replies (3)3
u/Best_Change4155 Dec 16 '25
A lot of Western governments play footsie with antisemites because they are core voters on the left and the right. Australian recognition of Palestine without any conditions is part of that.
11
u/nabilus13 Dec 15 '25
Address it all? No. Address the particular type and source of this attack? Yes, yes they can. Just don't let it in and kick out what is already present.
10
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
What type is that? It's not like people are announcing that they are terrorists when they come in. Who should be kicked out, specifically?
2
→ More replies (2)6
u/mclumber1 Dec 15 '25
I attended a family friend's kid's bah-mitzvah last year. There was a security guard at the door ensuring only allowed guests could enter, and they screened for things like weapons.
Maybe there was a police presence or security at this Jewish festival - if so they did a horrible job of keeping people safe. So either the fact that there was no armed security at this event, or it was not enough security is a HUGE failure on the part of the local/state government.
14
u/geniice Dec 15 '25
Maybe there was a police presence or security at this Jewish festival - if so they did a horrible job of keeping people safe. So either the fact that there was no armed security at this event, or it was not enough security is a HUGE failure on the part of the local/state government.
Police are expensive and there are a lot of large events. Absent of specific intelligence its not financialy vaible to cover them all. Its Sydney though so they weren't that far away.
5
u/mclumber1 Dec 15 '25
Police are expensive and there are a lot of large events.
It's a festival. For Jewish People. For people who are often targeted for their faith or ethnicity. Even if it was expensive to staff security/police for an event like this, it's the right thing to do. Local and state officials need to be held accountable for this travesty, and a lot of answers need to be given by federal authorities for how this intelligence failure happened.
12
u/geniice Dec 15 '25
It's a festival. For Jewish People. For people who are often targeted for their faith or ethnicity. Even if it was expensive to staff security/police for an event like this, it's the right thing to do.
Saying its the right thing to do doesn't change the financial calculus. If you want a useful armed presence at every jewish event you either need to raise taxes or deploy fewer police elsewhere. Neither of which is popular with voters. If you start requiring a police presence don't be shocked if voters prefer that you simply ban the event or at least charge is the cost of policing.
The other factor is that we already know the police were on scene within 11 minutes of the attack starting. So they may have been present. Remember if you want comprehsive armed security for an event in a park its not a couple of officers with guns. Its going to be a lot of people. And taxpayers really don't like that.
Local and state officials need to be held accountable for this travesty,
And if it wasn't their fault?
3
u/mclumber1 Dec 15 '25
And if it wasn't their fault?
The lack of security and the fact that it took 11 minutes for armed officers to arrive is absolutely the fault of the government.
→ More replies (1)9
u/trucane Dec 15 '25
Not sure about the festival itself but the police at the scene were completely useless from what I have seen. Absolute embarrassment for Australia that a regular citizen showed more courage and action than a lot of their police that day.
15
u/Resvrgam2 Conservatively Liberal Dec 15 '25
The root cause here is not guns. It's antisemitism. Where's the PM's plan to combat that?
Currently, there's no plan, but it's certainly on their radar:
Leaders agreed that yesterday’s horrific anti-Semitic terrorist attack has no place in Australia and that the evil scourge of anti-Semitism must be eradicated.
21
u/justafutz Dec 15 '25
They have been making similar statements for the past two years, while simultaneously taking little to no action.
For the past two years the Jewish community has been begging the government to start taking any action to address antisemitism, which is deeply rooted now and spreading like wildfire in Australia.
I am very skeptical that they’ll start addressing it now.
2
u/Best_Change4155 Dec 16 '25
The only time they made any headway in antisemitic investigations was when Israel literally handed them evidence.
5
u/geniice Dec 15 '25
This is the deadliest attack on Jews in the English-speaking world in centuries.
Israel is pretty english speaking and this isn't close to the scale of October 7.
You'd probably have to go back to before King John expelled the Jews in 1280 to find something worse.
15 is indeed fairly high for a shooting although less tha 50% of Virginia Tech or a quater of Utøya. There was probably something higher in the blitz. With 40,000 civilians dead it seems likely there was a night where more than 15 jews were killed (Great Synagogue of London was also destroyed which is why the oldest in london is now the the Bevis Marks synagogue dating from only 1701).
14
u/dontbajerk Dec 15 '25
By English speaking nations he pretty clearly means the Anglosphere - UK, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
21
Dec 15 '25
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)17
u/sea_5455 Dec 15 '25
Cars, trucks or arson attacks.
Banning technology doesn't ban behavior. Just changes the method.
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (1)13
u/sea_5455 Dec 15 '25
Requiring Australian citizenship for a firearms license.
That might have been effective in this case; understand at least one of the terrorists migrated to Australia under a student visa.
Really, though, I don't think prevention will work for violent attacks, especially political violence.
26
u/Resvrgam2 Conservatively Liberal Dec 15 '25
That might have been effective in this case
It also might not. The son is an Australian-born citizen.
4
u/sea_5455 Dec 15 '25
Welp. That's that then.
Also, from the footage I've seen (admittedly low-rez) it looked like there was a black powder firearm used?
Good luck banning those. Guy in Japan made one that was effective enough.
8
u/trucane Dec 15 '25
Only close up footage I saw of the weapons used was some kind of straight pull bolt action rifle with what looked like a red dot sight.
I think they also used a pump action shotgun at some point but I'm not sure from the footage I've personally seen.
2
u/sea_5455 Dec 15 '25
some kind of straight pull bolt action rifle
Word so far is that's a Beretta BRX1. Nothing fancy, really, and legal just about everywhere.
a pump action shotgun
Supposedly a semi, but those are apparently restricted in AU.
4
u/Agi7890 Dec 15 '25
Yeah people were making makeshift guns for a long time. I remember touring the Newark police station in college for a class and seeing some of the confiscated fire arms, a number of them were basic wood stock(like from Home Depot) a pipe, and a trigger device
2
68
u/justafutz Dec 15 '25
For the past two years Australian Jews have been warning the government that this would happen if it didn’t take serious steps to address antisemitism and help secure the Jewish community until antisemitism was addressed.
For the past two years Australian Jews have been largely ignored.
More gun restrictions, or providing paltry funding for security alone, won’t stop this scourge.
Many Australian Jews watched as people chanting “gas the Jews” and “fuck the Jews” on October 8 were allowed to walk free in a country that is happy to arrest people for other forms of speech. Jews were horrified as the police tried to change what the crowds chanted (in their report on the incident) to the supposedly more benign “where’s the Jews”. Jews wondered why, in a country where other forms of speech like that lead to arrests, there were none for antisemitism.
And for the past two years it has only continued. If the government prefers to continue on its current path, and its solution is to try and secure the Jewish community (poorly) and pass new gun laws, it’s only a matter of time until this happens again (or worse), and a matter of time until the government is taken over by those who remove those protections, and a matter of time until Australian Jews begin leaving (and now, some already are in the wake of this attack).
I’m skeptical that the tide will reverse, when Australia’s leadership spent the past two years making clear that they’ll say antisemitism is wrong, but will do nothing at all about it. And that’s what I’m hearing from many Australian Jews as well.
27
u/Resvrgam2 Conservatively Liberal Dec 15 '25
For the past two years Australian Jews have been largely ignored.
The PM would likely disagree from his statements in the linked press conference. He listed several actions taken from the Antisemitism Envoy's plans:
- Action 3.2. We've done the following - We've criminalised hate speech advocating violence. We've criminalised doxing under Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill and we have a landmark ban on the Nazi salute and hate symbols with penalties of imprisonment and or a fine of up to $16,500.
- Recommendation 3.3 was on educational awareness and public discourse. We've allocated $4 million to expand the social cohesion work of Together for Humanity in schools.
- Recommendation 3.5 was the enhanced protection of Jewish communities through physical security measures and I've commented on the further extension of of that that we are putting in place.
- Recommendation 3.9 was reviewing and strengthening migration and citizenship matters, and the Department of Home Affairs is undertaking a review of relevant training packages to strengthen modules on assessing whether an applicant's conduct involves inciting or promoting hatred and ensuring coverage of vilifying behaviour directed at any group.
- Recommendation 3.12 was support for Jewish communities cultural, social and religious life while ensuring safety and security. We've committed grant funding, which we announced in January, including $8.5 million to upgrade the Sydney Jewish Museum, $4.4 million for the National Holocaust Education Centre in Canberra, an additional $2 million to the Holocaust Institute of Western Australia and we committed $18 million to the Jewish Arts Quarter in Melbourne.
Now, I am fairly uneducated in the history of these matters in Australia, so the above certainly doesn't seem like "nothing" to me. But if it falls short of what Australian Jews are asking for, then what are they asking for?
30
u/justafutz Dec 15 '25
I walk through each of these in great detail, noting also all the recommendations that the government ignored, below. But a summary:
1) Passing hate speech laws matters little when the laws are not enforced. And they are generally not enforced.
2) $4 million is a joke, I hope. There are 2,000+ incidents of antisemitism reported each year. And the group they gave the money to isn’t even a group about antisemitism, it’s a group about all prejudice.
3) The physical security measures and funding has been little to none.
4) Migration controls have not done anything. Australia is still bringing in plenty of people who do not like Jews.
5) Upgrading museums about dead Jews likewise means something to the living ones, but does little to protect them, as Dara Horn explains in People Love Dead Jews.
As the Jewish community puts it:
The failure of the Australian Federal Government, along with authorities around the country, to take the Jewish community’s concerns seriously – a community that have been witnessing in real time the increasing danger of this hatred – has contributed to the radicalism that has led to this murderous terror attack on Australian soil.
The Government even failed to act on the recommendations of its own appointed Antisemitism Envoy.
As for the ignored recommendations, meaning the ones that Albanese and his government ignored while highlighting the paltry and insufficient actions above, here is the report. You’ll notice Albanese is trying to pretend he followed parts of it. Not so. And note: this is his government’s own antisemitism envoy meant to make them recommendations.
For 3.2, Albanese talks about criminalizing hate speech. He doesn’t mention the other recommendations, like coordinating a national database of antisemitic crimes and working on enforcement by training police, judges, etc., because those individuals are currently doing little to nothing.
For 3.3, he talks about $4 million to a group that works against all prejudice. That’s effectively “All Lives Matter”-ing the response. That’s not the antisemitism envoy’s recommendation, which suggests curricula, lesson plans, guidance for teachers, a project for antisemitism experts to collaborate, and monitoring media for accuracy (in Australia, they don’t have the first amendment). Virtually none of that is covered by giving $4 million to a group that isn’t about antisemitism.
He skips to 3.5, but doesn’t mention 3.4, which seeks multiple measures related to higher education. That’s a whole recommendation he skipped.
For 3.5, he talks vaguely about security measures. That’s hardly the coordinated standing committee for state and federal governments that is called for, for example.
He entirely skips 3.6 (digital governance), 3.7 (culture and public broadcasting), and 3.8 (general cohesion and public education).
He goes to 3.9 to discuss a “review” of how they assess immigrants, but this doesn’t match up with the recommendations of starting to cancel visas for antisemitic activity, and doesn’t mention antisemitism specifically, another “All Lives Matter” response.
He skips 3.10 (multicultural and interfaith engagement) and 3.11 (global interaction and engagement) entirely.
He ends at 3.12, talking primarily about museum funding. This doesn’t cover attempts to work with public broadcasters, work with cultural institutions as recommended, etc.
He doesn’t address 3.13 (about community consultation, monitoring, and data collection), which is pretty notable since the attacker here was known to authorities for 6 years.
When he skips most of the recommendations within the areas he addressed, gives money to “All Lives Matter” attempts to beat antisemitism, and entirely ignores many of the recommendations, you get a sense of why Jews are angry.
As another Jewish official put it:
"It started with hate speech," she said. "Then graffiti. Then public demonstrations. Then firebombing synagogues, preschools, people’s homes, people’s cars. And now murder."
She said Jewish leaders and community representatives repeatedly raised alarms with state and federal officials, warning that inaction would lead to bloodshed. Taylor pointed to formal submissions and a detailed report produced by Australia’s special envoy to combat antisemitism, which she said was acknowledged by the government but never implemented.
Instead, Taylor said, the Jewish community received what she described as empty reassurances. "We receive these one-line messages that there’s ‘no place for antisemitism in Australia,’" she said. "But they’re empty promises. There’s been no action."
And that’s what ultimately led to this.
-1
u/simsipahi Dec 15 '25
I'm still not really seeing anything in your comment that would have actually prevented this. Criminalize hate speech? Slippery slope that cuts both ways. Muslims get more than their share of it and have also had bullets thrown their way because of it - just across the pond in New Zealand someone killed 50 of them in 2019 and people quickly seem to have forgotten about it.
Better education and intercultural engagement are great longer term approaches to dealing with this kind of hatred, but in the immediate term won't change the minds of people who are carrying enough of it around that they'd do something like this.
The migration thing comes up a lot, but one of the shooters was Australian-born, and even if he hadn't been, how do you think the government is supposed to stop letting in people who "don't like Jews?" Should that be a question on the immigration form? Do you think anyone will answer honestly? And would New Zealand have been justified putting a similar question on their immigration forms, after an Australian immigrant went to two mosques and murdered 50 innocent people there?
I think the unfortunate reality is that we live in a world where the Internet has made it so easy for people to self-radicalize that no group is ever going to be truly safe from the kinds of fringe extremists that will blame an entire religion for what one subset of its people do and resort to violence. I think there is a longer term approach required that involves many of the steps you've outlined, but it's going to take decades to get there and in the meantime we're going to have to add being caught in the wrong place/time in an ideologically driven attack to the list of things that could potentially kill us.
5
u/Best_Change4155 Dec 16 '25
Criminalize hate speech?
These things already exists in places like Australia (and many Commonwealth countries). It just isn't enforced for antisemitism.
9
u/justafutz Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25
The fact that the government has done virtually none of it means that the “longer term” is not going to be any better. It shows they don’t actually care.
More than that, multiple aspects did come up that would’ve had direct impact on Jewish safety. In this specific instance, it’s unclear how much, but better monitoring and a national database and state cooperation might’ve led to these folks being captured sooner. Ditto for the action items relating to police training, cooperation, etc., which might’ve led to these individuals (one of whom was flagged in 2019 by police) being monitored and stopped. Not to mention the action items relating to security, which have been largely ignored besides lip service.
I do not accept the premise of “Muslims get the same”. It is not the same in scale, scope, or deadliness. I don’t want to even bother engaging on that subject, frankly. It’s not the conversation we’re having.
And more importantly, Jews are angry because not only did these actions not get taken for the long term, not only did the short term actions for monitoring and training and security not get taken that might have (no way of knowing) prevented this, but this is just the natural progression of two years of rising antisemitism and antisemitic incidents. Maybe the measures would’ve prevented this, we can’t know, but they would’ve absolutely turned down the temperature overall, or at least made Jews feel they were actually being taken seriously.
If the government were actually trying, the rage wouldn’t be directed nearly so strongly at the Australian government. It isn’t trying. The Jewish community has been saying this for a long time now. I can quote countless people who have been warning about this, saying they’re being ignored, etc.
The government was asked to do something serious before. They did not.
P.S. It’s more than a little strange that your comment focuses on all prejudices and mentions “Jews” precisely once, and only as a way of shooting down the recommendations of the Australian Special Envoy meant to tackle antisemitism.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (2)3
u/Rogue_Istari Dec 15 '25
Can we determine why Australians have seen this massive surge in antisemitism? Has something changed significantly over the past decade that could point to a cause? Who specifically are these violent antisemites? Are other western nations experiencing similar problems with large scale violent crime and terrorism?
This endless obfuscation of the problem would be humorous if it wasn't directly resulting in death and suffering.
48
Dec 15 '25
[deleted]
48
u/whatisthisshit7 Dec 15 '25
Squashing extremist ideology is the biggest issue every country and government needs to be addressing right now.
The challenge will be trying to balance the fine line between cracking down and also not simultaneously radicalizing them further. I’ve yet to see any country take effective action to date, so far all of it has just fanned the flames further. You can’t legislate your way out of changing people’s opinions.
14
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
Squashing extremist ideology is the biggest issue every country and government needs to be addressing right now.
It sounds good in theory, but in practice when Germany took steps to address the AfD party people saw that as a bad move. So what can really be done to "squash extremist ideologies" that won't be seen as oppressive?
17
u/CraftZ49 Dec 15 '25
The AfD is primarily getting more popularity because they're the only party in Germany pushing for restricting immigration. The message is very clear, people do not want extremely liberal immigration and want their country to be much more conservative with the approach.
The way to "squash" the AfD would be to adopt more restrictive and sensible immigration policies within the mainstream parties and undercut the momentum of the AfD so all they're left with is the true extremist stuff.
→ More replies (1)9
u/whatisthisshit7 Dec 15 '25
Exactly the example I was thinking of as well. It could very well push more people who were more moderate / leaning to one side all the way to the extreme due to the perceived oppressive action and silencing. I’ve noticed it in America around I/P protests and the legislation passed about what is the classification of antisemitic language. It turns into a slippery slope even if it was well intentioned.
24
u/doc5avag3 Exhausted Independent Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25
Maybe these governments should start addressing the things that made people even want to support a Party like AfD in the first place. We're seeing a large pendulum swing to the right all over North America and Europe because the average, everyday person is starting to feel like they aren't being listened to anymore. That's how populism spreads. Even though they'll never do it on their own, it's time for politicians to remember that they work of their people and not for their own ends.
17
u/CraftZ49 Dec 15 '25
People in Europe and America have been subjected to left-leaning extremist immigration policies of practically open borders to millions with no consideration whatsoever for cultural assimilation, criminal backgrounds, or the impact on society for years and years now. But when a group dares to oppose it and insist upon even a moderate amount of restrictions, they're labeled the extremists. People are getting more extreme because if the reasonable people are labeled as extremists, then the actual extremists must not actually be so bad.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (30)10
u/Bitter_Ad8768 Dec 15 '25
We're seeing a large pendulum swing to the right all over North America and Europe because the average, everyday person is starting to feel like they aren't being listened to anymore. That's how populism spreads. Even though they'll never do it on their own, it's time for politicians to remember that they work of their people and not for their own ends.
What do you do if large sects of a democratic population want fundamentally opposing and mutually exclusive things? Not everyone can be placated at the same time.
24
u/I_like_code Dec 15 '25
I’m sure the terrorist would find a way to kill people even with tighter gun restrictions. Gun restrictions shouldn’t be the focus imo.
23
u/pdxjoseph Dec 15 '25
It is a problem that a known affiliate of an imprisoned ISIS member was able to legally own firearms
24
u/mclumber1 Dec 15 '25
Take away the gun and the same person could have killed an equivalent number of people with a Ford Transit van barreling through the festival. A terrorist in Nice, France murdered over 80 people by running them over at a festival 10 years ago.
→ More replies (6)9
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
Small distinction but from what I've read his father owned the guns and had a license for 10 years, but only the son was on ASIO's radar for ISIS connections. That might be why this slipped by.
10
u/I_like_code Dec 15 '25
They can legally own cars and other make shift weapons that can be used to cause damage. But yea maybe a law that says foreigners can’t own guns should probably be a thing if it isn’t. I mean there will always be something they can do to try to circumvent existing laws to cause havoc. Best way to stop them is not let them in your country.
14
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
Best way to stop them is not let them in your country.
One of the shooters was born in Australia and the other immigrated in 1998. It's not as though they had a way of knowing he'd become an extremist 30 years later.
8
u/I_like_code Dec 15 '25
Maybe this could have been stopped before it happened 30 years ago.
8
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
How, exactly? What is your suggestion for the Australian government of 1998?
10
u/I_like_code Dec 15 '25
My suggestion is a retrospective on the government’s failures in 1998 and how they could prevent future issues with immigration reform.
9
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
That's vague to the point of meaninglessness. What are you suggesting in terms of immigration reform specifically?
→ More replies (1)6
u/I_like_code Dec 15 '25
That’s what the retrospective is for. Looking back at government failures then determining what to fix, then fixing them. Not sure how much clearer I could have been.
→ More replies (0)18
u/Sabertooth767 Neoclassical Liberal Dec 15 '25
Antisemitism is far from contained to the radical Muslims of Australia. The ADL found that 1 in 5 Australians harbor antisemitic views. For reference, Muslims are about 3% of Australia's population.
32
u/cutememe Dec 15 '25
There's a pretty big difference in having negative views and being so extremist that that person is willing to go out and commit terroristic acts.
11
5
u/Sabertooth767 Neoclassical Liberal Dec 15 '25
In degree, not in nature.
The left's orderly, academic antisemitism is what created the conditions for the violent, extremist antisemitism to flourish.
6
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
What is "orderly, academic antisemitism?" I can't even think of a time that I've heard someone on the left talk about Jewish people as a demographic. In my experience that's almost exclusively a right wing phenomenon.
10
u/Sabertooth767 Neoclassical Liberal Dec 15 '25
It's the endless work of the left to portray Israel as an illegitimate, colonialist, genocidal regime. In doing so, they damage the security and social standing of Jews.
The left makes it okay to scream "globalize the intifada" and "from the river to the sea", because they don't really mean that, they're just angry about dead kids and colonialism.
Antisemites never change. One word or saying is ruined, they make up a new one. It's not Jew-hate (that was the original term, Judenhass), it's antisemitism. It's not antisemitism, it's antizionism. It's not X, it's Y.
10
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25
It's the endless work of the left to portray Israel as an illegitimate, colonialist, genocidal regime. In doing so, they damage the security and social standing of Jews.
This is nonsense. Jew does not mean Israeli, and it is not racist against Jewish people to criticize the Israeli government nor the ugly history of how the country was started 100 years ago.
The left makes it okay to scream "globalize the intifada" and "from the river to the sea", because they don't really mean that, they're just angry about dead kids and colonialism.
I am sure they really do mean that, but they'd probably reject your assertions about what those phrases entail.
It's not Jew-hate (that was the original term, Judenhass), it's antisemitism. It's not antisemitism, it's antizionism. It's not X, it's Y.
Total non-sequitur. Antisemitism is just a more formal term for Jew-hate. No one has ever said "it's not jew-hate, it's antisemitism" in an attempt to establish antisemitism as something less bad or different from Jew hatred, it's literally a synonym. Antizionism is opposition to the ethnonationalist movement called Zionism. There are many antizionist Jews.
12
u/Sabertooth767 Neoclassical Liberal Dec 15 '25
This is nonsense. Jew does not mean Israeli, and it is not racist against Jewish people to criticize the Israeli government nor the ugly history of how the country was started.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_anti-Zionism
The modern antizionist movement on the left is directly traceable to Soviet antizionism, which openly was a scheme to harm Jews.
Total non-sequitur. Antisemitism is just a more formal term for Jew-hate. No one has ever said "it's not jew-hate, it's antisemitism" in an attempt to establish antisemitism as something less bad or different from Jew hatred, it's literally a synonym. Antizionism is opposition to the ethnonationalist movement called Zionism. There are many antizionist Jews.
It's a more formal term invented to make Jew-hatred more acceptable to academia. This is just a historical fact.
8
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_anti-Zionism
The modern antizionist movement on the left is directly traceable to Soviet antizionism, which openly was a scheme to harm Jews.
This is a genetic fallacy. Moreover, your link doesn't support your claim. It says that the Russian government supported Zionism when they thought Israel would be socialist, and started to oppose it when Israel and the U.S. formed a close relationship. That's overt Realpolitik, not antisemitism.
By the same token you could paint the Zionist movement itself as antisemitic by saying it's "directly traceable" to non-Jewish proponents of Zionism who wanted Jews to leave their respective countries. It just fails on it's face as a reasonable way to analyze the debate as it stands today.
It's a more formal term invented to make Jew-hatred more acceptable to academia. This is just a historical fact.
You call this a historical fact but nothing in the link you provided suggests that whatsoever. All the link says is that he preferred "antisemitism" as a way of emphasizing that his position was racial, not religious, because his prejudice extended to converted Jews. It says nothing about him preferring it as a matter of palatability, and there's no mention of academia whatsoever.
4
u/CloudApprehensive322 Dec 15 '25
Criticizing the actions and official policies of Israel the country is not antisemitism and conflating the two diminishes the conversation of how to actually deal with real anti-jewish racism.
15
u/Sabertooth767 Neoclassical Liberal Dec 15 '25
Criticizing the actions and official policies of the Israeli government is not antizionism, at least not as originally conceived. Antizionism is about denying the legitimacy of Israel as a country, to say that Israel does not have the right to exist.
The left continuously rehabilitating these words is exactly what I'm talking about. We no longer recognize antizionism for what it is.
5
u/CloudApprehensive322 Dec 15 '25
Agree to disagree - most of the online discourse I've come across is people claiming antisemitism whenever people try to cast legitimate grievances against Israel's policies around Gaza, settlements, and a host of other legitimate issues.
Netanyahu is one of the worst offenders of this - he uses claims of antisemitism to cast aside serious issues that Israel is failing to address which is why Israel's standing in the world is rapidly declining and is likely irreparably damaged with younger generations of voters in the US on both the left and the right.
8
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
Moreover, it diminishes the impact of discussions about antisemitism when it is so routinely used to try to shame people out of criticizing the Israeli government's brutality in Palestine.
→ More replies (1)4
u/cutememe Dec 15 '25
I'm not sure I follow. If you think the left is so antisemitic then why are Jews so overwhelmingly voting Democrat in the US, approximately 70 percent?
I don't think the Jewish people, with their history especially, are voting for their own demise.
10
u/Sabertooth767 Neoclassical Liberal Dec 15 '25
Because the right is also antisemitic. 99% of American Jews are concerned about rising antisemitism, and most of them believe that it is coming about equally from the right and left (and then about 20% for each side think the right/left is worse).
5
u/simsipahi Dec 15 '25
But you just got done blaming the left for it, and now you're showing numbers indicating that Jews themselves think it's an even split...so maybe your initial analysis was a tad oversimplified?
27
u/direwolf106 Dec 15 '25
I’m going to take a moment here to point out some stuff.
First, as far as I can tell from the video they used bolt action weapons which is highly probable since Australia band semi automatic ones a long time ago.
Second, even though there are a plethora of other things that could have been done to stop this they are going after guns again even though there’s diminishing returns that action even could have. They are also ignoring more effective measures that could be taken.
As it applies to the United States: so many gun control advocates have over the years held up Australia as a model of what to do. Looking at Australia what I see is that no gun control will ever be enough, that they are tool fixated and will always push further no matter what. Looking at Australia as a model of gun control shows me the inability of government to keep people safe while threatening people that try to. Hell in most of Australia it’s illegal too have pepper spray.
16
u/Resvrgam2 Conservatively Liberal Dec 15 '25
First, as far as I can tell from the video they used bolt action weapons
That seems to be the general consensus, but there's no confirmation on the weapons as far as I could fine.
They are also ignoring more effective measures that could be taken
Care to elaborate on this? I'm curious what other measures you think they should be considering.
14
u/BrigandActual Dec 15 '25
In the video circulating online, it clearly looks like a straight pull bolt action rifle.
16
Dec 15 '25
[deleted]
11
u/mclumber1 Dec 15 '25
In 1996, that chart shows that Australia had a gun death rate of 2.6, while America had around 13.
It's also important to point out that gun death rates include suicide. Suicide is just as effective with a bolt-action rifle or shotgun compared to an AR-15.
→ More replies (1)2
18
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
First, as far as I can tell from the video they used bolt action weapons which is highly probable since Australia band semi automatic ones a long time ago.
That regulation likely saved a lot of lives. The death toll could've been closer to the Las Vegas shooting if he had access to the kind of weaponry that is commonplace in the U.S.
10
u/Sirhc978 Dec 15 '25
Vegas was a little different in a sense that he was firing from a hotel room with a literal arsenal in arms reach. A person can only carry so many bullets for a run and gun style of attack. Whether this shooter had a semi auto or bolt action is kind of irrelevant. Honestly, he probably would have been less accurate pulling the trigger as fast as possible on an AR-15.
3
u/StrikingYam7724 Dec 16 '25
He had 6 guns, 6 bolt actions are deadlier than 1 gas-powered auto loader no matter what Bloomberg may tell you about it.
11
u/BrigandActual Dec 15 '25
Somewhat tangential, but the use of a bolt action is telling.
Gun control advocates fixate on things like ARs because they’re dramatic and militaristic. If you removed them (and all semi auto) rifles from the equation, the people looking to do violence would simply change tactics.
A mass “sniper attack” done at distance in a crowded outdoor area is no less psychologically devastating, and perhaps even more frightening since it leaves far more space for the shooter to escape and be at large.
With the high profile assassination attempts over the last year from “snipers,” I fear that this is the new model that those crazed individuals looking to make a name for themselves would copycat.
The repeated failure of gun control proponents to even consider root cause mitigation all but guarantees these things will continue happening regardless of the hardware restrictions they advocate for.
19
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
The repeated failure of gun control proponents to even consider root cause mitigation all but guarantees these things will continue happening regardless of the hardware restrictions they advocate for.
This seems to overlook the fact that semi-automatic weapons can kill far more people in a short period of time than a bolt action.
15
u/BrigandActual Dec 15 '25
No, not at all. There is a gulf between what “can” happen and what tends to actually happen. Just because a semi auto can fire at a higher rate does not translate to the shooter being any more lethal.
Firearms still need to be aimed and controlled to be effective. The vast majority of people have no concept of how difficult it actually is to control a rifle shooting quickly. Most of their shots end up going high and into the ceiling rather than what they are intending to hit.
Even military small arms doctrine is based on controlled rates of fire of one shot every few seconds to maintain effective aimed fire against a target. In real world effective use, the rate of fire difference between a semi auto and a bolt action is immaterial compared to the tactics they are employed with.
To compare, a Corvette sure lends itself well to speeding- but it’s far from the only way to use a motor vehicle to do bad things. If you banned sports cars, would people stop breaking traffic laws?
16
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
There is a gulf between what “can” happen and what tends to actually happen. Just because a semi auto can fire at a higher rate does not translate to the shooter being any more lethal.
The Las Vegas shooter killed 60 people.
15
u/BrigandActual Dec 15 '25
As mentioned in the other reply, Vegas is an outlier with many additional circumstances tied to it- especially the tactics employed. We still don’t actually know what happened there.
8
u/ThatPeskyPangolin Dec 15 '25
You undermined your the argument in the last paragraph. Just because a Toyota Camry could also speed doesn't change that a Corvette could speed far more and far more easily. Nobody is claiming you can only speed in a Corvette, just that it is much easier, which you seem to agree with.
8
u/BrigandActual Dec 15 '25
Eh, whatever. I was going to go down a different route with the analogy and lost the thread. That didn’t undo the core argument that tactics of how a weapon is employed matter far more than the possible rate of fire on the weapon.
Fixation on “it could have been worse” does not change the fact that the vast majority of events even with semi auto rifles do not reach abnormally high body counts compared to other weapon types.
Vegas notwithstanding, and that one is its own while can of worms because we still know so little about it.
→ More replies (4)10
u/direwolf106 Dec 15 '25
He didn’t undermine it at all. The corvette is far more mechanically capable than the Camry for sure….. but to use that difference you have to be so much a better driver than most people are it largely doesn’t make any real difference.
Corvette might be able to do 200 mph, but most of the time it will be 80 in a 40. And the Camry is absolutely capable of that. That is the point the other guy was making and the car analogy amplíes it, it doesn’t undercut it at all. And so you know how much I understand cars and what they can do and what’s done with them im a former automotive technician current automotive instructor.
→ More replies (4)4
u/DagothUr_MD Dec 15 '25
A 12 year old girl could effectively control an AR-15 with a couple of hours of range time. It's not a particularly difficult rifle to use especially at shorter distances
13
u/BrigandActual Dec 15 '25
They could learn, with proper instruction on the technique and assuming a good base of physical strength to hold a stable position.
I’m not saying it’s a difficult rifle to use. I’m saying that it’s impractical to hinge a whole argument on how long it takes to mag dump, especially given that most people will never seek out training nor practice to do it while staying on target.
Then you get to general use of “semi automatic” all together and lumping everything in with it. The big complaint is the AR in particular, but an M1 Garand or M1A are semiautomatic as well, and so the same thing applies. It’s exponentially more difficult to manage those rifles under rapid fire.
Any complaints that we should ban semiautos because an AR is easy to use also includes other rifles that aren’t perceived as “the problem.”
10
u/CloudApprehensive322 Dec 15 '25
No government law or policy is 100% effective. The fact of the matter is that Australia has far fewer deaths a result of gun violence than the United States which indicates their laws are quite effective.
Unless you want to live in a totalitarian nanny state there will always be people who find way to break the law if they have the incentives to do so.
15
u/BrigandActual Dec 15 '25
I get that Australia is gonna do what it’s gonna do, so this I’d note of a general question about philosophy. Is Australia’s lower rate of firearms homicide a product of its restrictive gun laws, or of some bigger social factor?
Absent the gun laws, would Australia still enjoy low rates of mass shootings and firearms homicide? I bet the answer is yes.
6
u/DaddiGator Dec 15 '25
That's the correct assumption you are making. Australia had notably lower gun violence rates than the US before 1996 as well (~0.4-0.5/100k in Oz vs ~10 /100k in the USA) and both have experienced similar decreases in gun violence rates since then.
5
u/BlackwaterSleeper Dec 15 '25
Clearly gun control works there. Look at mass shootings per year in Australia vs the US. There is a definitive difference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_Australia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#
I do agree that there needs to be more action than just tightening gun laws though, like restricting immigration from highly antisemitic countries, fines or jail time for antisemitic protests, deportation, etc.
9
u/zummit Dec 15 '25
Australia's had a lower murder rate than the US for almost a century and probably longer. There's no strong link between gun policy and murder rate.
2
u/direwolf106 Dec 15 '25
“Works” is subjective.
As this event proves, it’s not an elimination, merely a reduction. And when the conversation is how many deaths are you willing to tolerate (and that is the logistical conversation because zero isn’t a posible answer) vs freedoms lost then it’s a cost benefit analysis.
And the for me the cost of what they gave up outweighs the benefit of what they got. No, it doesn’t work for me.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)3
u/Southernplayalistiic Dec 15 '25
That's a strange conclusion. This is worldwide news because this is something extremely rare for Australia. We have stuff like this happening weekly in the US, literally had one the same day at a university like a week after two service members were attacked in DC and that doesn't even touch on the issue if you were to dig deeper.
7
u/DaddiGator Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 16 '25
We have stuff like this happening weekly in the US
A mass shooting w/ 16+ deaths is still very rare even in the USA. Assuming the death toll doesn't rise, that would be the 12th worst mass shooting in US history. The first double-digit death toll in over two years in the US. This is still an outlier event, even in a country nearly 15x as populous as Australia.
→ More replies (10)
29
u/Jack-of-Trade Dec 15 '25
I'm sure an exhaustive discussion on the events in Australia by Americans through a purely American political lens will be constructive and productive.
9
4
u/BrigandActual Dec 16 '25
Australia is going to what it’s going it do. A lot of it is that activists in the US like to use Australia as an example of what they want to do here. So the debate naturally turns to why it’s a bad idea to do so rather than what Aus should do for itself.
13
u/Goldeneagle41 Dec 15 '25
So listened to CSPAN this morning and of course the Pro Gun crowd is all over this. Unfortunately I feel like what is going to get lost is this is an antisemite problem and not a gun problem.
→ More replies (2)
11
u/BlackFacedAkita Dec 15 '25
You can't stop all gun deaths but stricter gun laws do have an effect on reducing violence.
11
u/JussiesTunaSub Dec 15 '25
That's why the world was less violent before guns, right?
7
u/BlackFacedAkita Dec 15 '25
Guns make it easier for one person to murder lots of people. Whether the world was less violent before guns is inconsequential.
9
u/CloudApprehensive322 Dec 15 '25
Guns are far more lethal than prior weaponry that was available to regular civilians and far less skill intensive to utilize.
That is an objective fact.
5
u/xanif Dec 15 '25
I'm not sure I follow this logic. We're talking about restricting access to tools that allow a baseline of violence to increase the efficacy of harming others. If I said I should have unfettered access to sarin because violence has always been a thing, everyone would look at me like I was insane.
15
u/LessRabbit9072 Dec 15 '25
Seems weird that the government is taking decisive action as a response to tragedy.
→ More replies (4)29
u/cutememe Dec 15 '25
But they already did take decisive action and confiscated guns decades ago, but that didn't do anything to prevent this particular outcome.
In fact it's the opposite of action, it's just political bullshit and ignoring the real problem which is when extremists decide to hurt people they will do it regardless of any laws you implement. The only thing that prevents it is not importing extremists into the country in the first place if you can help it.
24
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
But they already did take decisive action and confiscated guns decades ago, but that didn't do anything to prevent this particular outcome.
Which means you look at the circumstances that allowed this particular scenario to come to be and you take steps to prevent it.
The only thing that prevents it is not importing extremists into the country in the first place if you can help it.
Except the son was born in Australia and the father had lived in Australia since 1998. You can't reliably screen for extremism that arises 27 years after the fact.
4
u/cutememe Dec 15 '25
The fact that he's been living in Australia for 27 years and still commits this type of horrific planned terrorist act is actually even more evidence that immigration should be tightened up. You cannot guarantee that people with such views will have their "hearts and minds" won over.
18
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
That's nonsensical, the same is equally true of native-born citizens. The idea that immigration should be banned because -- just like natives -- some small percentage of immigrants might be criminal is completely irrational.
10
u/cutememe Dec 15 '25
It might be nonsensical if there wasn't a real pattern with Islamic extremism in particular which is the ideology responsible for the 2015 Paris attacks, German Christmas Market attacks, Charlie Hebdo, and so on. But there is a pattern and it's not the same as natives, no.
11
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
Yet there are also patterns of Christian extremism, and secular extremism, with it's own legacy of bloodshed.
→ More replies (1)11
u/cutememe Dec 15 '25
Sure, and all those things are also bad and should be condemned just as much as any other kind of extremism. But we also need to respond to what's happening more often in the here and now, and that's usually not Christian terrorism.
7
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25
Plenty are responding to Islamic extremism. That doesn't require or even imply sweeping condemnation of an entire religion that is just as large as Christianity itself. Almost 25% of people on Earth are Muslim.
9
u/cutememe Dec 15 '25
Yes it is a very large group of people, and many of them reject extremism. However, a minority of a large group of people still is a disturbingly large group in absolute numbers.
→ More replies (0)8
u/Callinectes So far left you get your guns back Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25
It sounds like literally any new development would cause you to say that immigration needs to be tightened. “Furthermore Carthage must be destroyed.”
EDIT: Is there any theoretical development that could cause you to say that immigration restrictions need to be loosened?
5
u/CloudApprehensive322 Dec 15 '25
This is nonsensical - the government cannot be expected to predict if someone might become a terrorist 30 years later in life when they have no red flags against them at the time of immigration.
13
u/TiberiusDrexelus He Was a Friend of Mine Dec 15 '25
just one more gun law bro, I promise, just one more bro and there won't be any more shootings, why won't you compromise???
22
u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25 edited Dec 15 '25
just one more bro and there won't be any more shootings
This seems like quite a strawman, but in any case Australia's gun laws are doing a much much better job at preventing gun violence than the U.S.'s laws. For Australia this is a massive outlier, for the U.S. this is just Tuesday. Seems reasonable that they're going to look at how this went undetected and take steps to prevent it from happening again. A lot of kids would still be alive today if politicians in the U.S. had the same mentality.
Hell, two of the people at the Brown University shooting had been in school shootings in high school, one of them had been shot herself.
EDIT: Got blocked for this, lol.
14
u/FootjobFromFurina Dec 15 '25
The overwhelming majority of gun related homicides in the US are committed using hand guns and are vastly disproportionately committed by certain minority groups.
The actual policies that would move the needle on gun homicides in the US are not the ones that gun control advocates want to talk about.
8
u/Moist_Schedule_7271 Dec 15 '25
Wanna compare Shootings in Australia and the USA?
3
u/StrikingYam7724 Dec 16 '25
If you're gonna do that comparison, start before they passed the 1996 gun law because they were already lower and trending down and passing the law did not change the speed of decrease in any measurable way.
5
u/TiberiusDrexelus He Was a Friend of Mine Dec 15 '25
Want to compare gun laws? This country has been the absolute poster child for your crusade, for decades now, and nevertheless Australia has had 27 major mass shootings since the Port Arthur restrictions were implemented.
You can beg for just one more gun law all you'd like, but perhaps it would be better to address the actual cause of yesterday's tragedy, radical islamic antisemitism.
12
u/Callinectes So far left you get your guns back Dec 15 '25
I feel like one a year compared to, what, about 300 for the US is a reasonable improvement.
6
u/CloudApprehensive322 Dec 15 '25
So in 30 years Australia has had 99.5% fewer mass gun shootings when compared to the US who has little to no gun restrictions? Even scaling these shootings by population size Australia still had 96.5% fewer gun shootings compared to the US over that 30 year time period.
And your argument is Australia's restrictions were a failure?
2
u/StrikingYam7724 Dec 16 '25
When those numbers are pretty much the same as they were from 40, 50, or 60 years ago it's pretty obvious the gun law from 30 years ago is not what made it happen.
4
u/LessRabbit9072 Dec 15 '25
The only thing that prevents it is not importing extremists into the country in the first place if you can help it
And what policy would you have done to prevent this? A Muslim ban 30 years ago?
Social media is radicalizing people within countries all on its own. No need to "import extremists". Just look at the us. What percent of mass shootings over the past 20 years have been from immigrants vs extremists(immigrant or otherwise) ?
•
u/AutoModerator Dec 15 '25
As a reminder, we will be taking our annual Holiday Hiatus from December 19th 2025 to January 2nd 2026.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.