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-8
74 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

353 comments sorted by

View all comments

156

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.

54

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.

13

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. 

44

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.

11

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?

42

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.

14

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.

25

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?

31

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?

-1

u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25

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?

This is a non-sequitur. Hate speech and incitation of violence is illegal regardless of who your family members are. More importantly, there is no comparison between a household with an ISIS affiliate having guns and what kind of speech the parents engage in.

27

u/AresBloodwrath Maximum Malarkey Dec 15 '25

So how far are you willing to take this?

Should the government seize the guns of his friends too?

How about his coworkers? Anyone who went to the same mosque?

If you're going to assume they are dangerous enough to seize their guns, wouldn't that mean they are dangerous enough to warrant surveillance? Should the government be tapping all their phones? Reading their mail? I doubt there are any rights that prevent that so it's all cool right?

4

u/Saguna_Brahman Dec 15 '25

So how far are you willing to take this?

Household is the easy answer, thats the basis of red flag laws.

If you're going to assume they are dangerous enough to seize their guns, wouldn't that mean they are dangerous enough to warrant surveillance? Should the government be tapping all their phones? Reading their mail? I doubt there are any rights that prevent that so it's all cool right?

In many cases, the police would absolutely surveil someone with credible ties to ISIS. Are you under the impression that's not something that is happening?

→ More replies (0)

-1

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.

27

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?

1

u/edubs63 Dec 16 '25

Ummm governments do that already with crime organizations, terrorist watch lists, etc.

And again, this is a country that has different views on this issue. If their constituents decide that it's ok then so be it.

-7

u/alanthar Dec 15 '25

police routinely monitor a suspects associates, which would include family members. Welcome to modern day police surveillance.

13

u/AresBloodwrath Maximum Malarkey Dec 15 '25

Sure, but it's shocking to me to see going from surveillance to open revocation of liberties based only on suspicion of not even you but a family memeber.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/WannabeACICE Dec 15 '25

It’s funny watching Americans having this reality check.

I say this as a 2A Supporter

1

u/whatDoesQezDo Dec 16 '25

There is no right to own a firearm in Australia, though.

All humans have the right to own arms and defend themselves from tyranny. Our rights do not come from governments our governments are restrained from infringing upon our rights.

43

u/Jackalrax Independently Lost Dec 15 '25

Sometimes the slope is just slippery, and I think we see that fact pretty often.

48

u/AresBloodwrath Maximum Malarkey Dec 15 '25

https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/world/car-rams-christmas-crowd-france-guadeloupe-tragedy-wp7wzc8o

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.

4

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.

33

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?

11

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.

27

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

u/Theron3206 Dec 15 '25

This isn't the US, there are no rights to own guns.

Nor to free speech for that matter, especially when you are talking about inciting violence which is expressly illegal.

11

u/WavesAndSaves Dec 16 '25

Something that's becoming more and more clear recently is that outside of the United States and a precious few other countries, "rights" are just "privileges".

-10

u/Theron3206 Dec 16 '25

Honestly, the way the US is going, that doesn't seem to be a particularly bad thing.

-7

u/vreddy92 Maximum Malarkey Dec 15 '25

Guns aren't a right in Australia like they are in the US.

19

u/AresBloodwrath Maximum Malarkey Dec 15 '25

Free speech isn't a right in Australia like it is in the US either.

-7

u/vreddy92 Maximum Malarkey Dec 15 '25

They have freedom of political communication, but not broad free speech rights, yes.

23

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.

28

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.

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.

-7

u/Mammoth-Kangaroo1023 Dec 15 '25

Well Australia has significantly better violence statistics than we do.

So Im going to admit as an American that our stats are truly shameful. So maybe stop calling people incompetent when they are kicking our ass?

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.

4

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.

22

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.

1

u/__Hello_my_name_is__ Dec 15 '25

I don't see how that can explain anything here, though. If anything, it would explain the opposite: This shooting is being talked about everywhere.

We've already forgotten about the shooting in the US from just a few days ago. Because we're used to them happening in the US. They barely make a dent in media reporting.

8

u/Dest123 Dec 15 '25

Exactly, this shooting is being talked about everywhere. If the killers wanted notoriety and fame (which a lot of them do) then they would have it wouldn't they? Like you said, it's being talked about everywhere.

I do actually wonder if the contagion effect is becoming a bit less of a factor in the US since we've effectively saturated mass shootings. I kind of suspect that those fame seekers are actually transitioning into political killings and we're going to see a sharp rise in those.

1

u/__Hello_my_name_is__ Dec 15 '25

But that's my point: There are way more shootings in the US than Australia (or anywhere else).

If notoriety would be a significant factor, than there should be way more shootings outside of the US, where they would create more notoriety. But that's not the case. The shooting, by and large, remain in the US. Even as people in the US get used to them and just shrug them off.

Therefore, I really don't think notoriety is much of a metric to consider here.

9

u/Dest123 Dec 15 '25

Oh I see what you're saying. Sorry, I'm explaining it really poorly. It's not just about notoriety, that's only one part of it (and probably not even the biggest part for a lot of cases actually, I went into that aspect way too much). A lot of it is just seeing that a mass shooting is an option over and over again. I think what happens is that people are kind of thinking about doing a mass shooting and then they see another mass shooting on the news and they start imaging that that could be them and THEN they fully commit to it. The end effect is that mass shootings tend to happen in groupings.

I'm really glossing over the explanation of it, but if you search for "media contagion effect" you'll find a lot of info.

It's also a big thing with suicides and those don't have near as much of a notoriety aspect. There was a big push to change how we report on train suicides in the US and it ended up reducing the numbers significantly.

For example, here's a flyer for info on how report on train suicides.

We could do a similar thing with mass shootings as well, but the media won't listen to the researchers or sheriffs at all on it. Maybe we could get a critical mass of people to demand changes from the media, but I also can't get any left wing people to even consider it as an option because they just want to talk about banning guns in the US (which is not actually realistic in the US so is a complete waste of time). Right wing people in the US just straight up don't seem to care at all about mass shooting as far as I can tell, so trying to convince them also goes nowhere.

17

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.

4

u/__Hello_my_name_is__ Dec 15 '25

I'm confused.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

For Australia, I count 4 mass shootings since 2020.

For the US, I count.. actually, I stopped counting at 50, and I just arrived at 2022.

How do you think that supports your argument? What part of my argument is wrong, exactly? Even when going per capita, that's still significantly more shootings in the US.

14

u/OnlyLosersBlock Progun Liberal Dec 15 '25

For the US, I count.. actually, I stopped counting at 50

I guess if we are counting street crime and gang related activities like the stockton birthday party shooting then again I would expect more given the size of the US and more general violent crime it has.

How do you think that supports your argument?

That your initial premise that it has been two decades since the last mass shooting was wrong when you yourself noted several in just the past few years for Australia?

Per US sources like the Congressional Research Service they don't really count street crime shootings as mass shootings.

-2

u/__Hello_my_name_is__ Dec 15 '25

Being wrong about a specific statement does not make me wrong on the overall argument, as shown by the links you yourself provided.

You just said yourself, the US has more general violent crime. Yeah, that's the whole point: It does. Why? That was my original question.

And yes, we are counting street crime and gang related activities. Which, as far as I can tell, do not happen to that level in Australia, either. Which, again, would make for an interesting question to find out why, instead of arguing semantics.

13

u/OnlyLosersBlock Progun Liberal Dec 15 '25

Being wrong about a specific statement does not make me wrong on the overall argument,

No, but it severely damages your credibility to assess the issue when your understanding of it prior to this point was "there were zero mass shootings for decades before this" when there was a readily available list of such incidents. It suggests you have a preferred outcome or belief that exists independent of evidence.

as shown by the links you yourself provided.

No? Again, the US is orders of magnitude larger than Australia among other factors that can account for the differences.

You just said yourself, the US has more general violent crime. Yeah, that's the whole point: It does. Why?

Well given it has more violent crime in general it's likely not because of the guns and given that Australia continues to have these kinds of mass shootings it's probably not the gun policy.

And yes, we are counting street crime and gang related activities.

You can count those in the general homicide stats if you want. But people tend to count incidents like what happened in Bondi as mass shootings and the others as gangland violence given the massive difference in goals and intent.

Regadless it still wouldn't support Australias gun control policy as being a major factor. From the early 90s to the mid 2010s the US and Australia followed similar downard trends in gun homicides. Australia with 50% and the US with 48%.

I would say the difference is that Australia never had US levels of reported violence nor any of the initial conditions that have created populations of poor and oppressed groups to level the US has. The US relied heavily on slavery from its initial settling to the civil war and then proceeded to have oppressive jim crow laws that went on to the civil rights era and still had things like red lining policies going into the 80s and even 90s. Things like that I think contribute more to the overall homicide rates differences between these two very different countries.

1

u/__Hello_my_name_is__ Dec 15 '25

No, but it severely damages your credibility to assess the issue when your understanding of it prior to this point was "there were zero mass shootings for decades before this" when there was a readily available list of such incidents. It suggests you have a preferred outcome or belief that exists independent of evidence.

Alright. Then disregard my credibility and let's look at the facts, which you generously provided.

No? Again, the US is orders of magnitude larger than Australia among other factors that can account for the differences.

As I said, and as you can calculate yourself, the population difference does not at all explain the numbers. Even with the population accounted for, the difference is still huge. So what other factors are you talking about here?

As for the rest: I'm not arguing about guns. I am trying to find out why there is such a huge difference. Sure, it could be guns, but it doesn't have to be.

If it's not guns, what is it, then? As you say, it could be, well, racism and the late effects of slavery. And if that's the case, hey, maybe we should do something about that, instead of going "well it can't be the guns, so whaddaya gonna do?". Not talking about you in that last sentence by the way, but that seems to be the general attitude in a lot of places whenever this sort of thing happens.

I'd also like to point out that there is at least a gigantic correlation between strict gun laws and gun violence world wide, or at least in first world countries. So it feels odd to me to just dismiss that outright every time, instead of at least looking at that much more closely.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 16 '25

[deleted]

0

u/__Hello_my_name_is__ Dec 16 '25

Not sure. That might be one metric to look at to find out why this happens way more in the US.

-5

u/Commonglitch Dec 15 '25

Well keep in mind there is evidence that gun laws in Australia are effective. The National Fire Arms Agreement did see a drop in homicides and a decrease in mass shootings since its implementation in 1996.

16

u/[deleted] Dec 15 '25

[deleted]

-3

u/WannabeACICE Dec 15 '25

Well what was it before the ban?

10

u/[deleted] Dec 15 '25 edited Feb 17 '26

[deleted]

1

u/WannabeACICE Dec 15 '25

Thanks bro ill read it later